• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

A no-taking-sides, no judgment classification of the 4 types of Audiophile. "The audiophile bestiary".

pderousse

Active Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2022
Messages
122
Likes
73
Hi all, long time listener, first time poster here. Apologies in advance, 1500 word essay incoming:

TL;DR: ITT I try to classify all audiophiles without mocking anyone.

I think it’s amazing how much contributors to this and other forums have advanced the state of the hobby as well as the industry “from the bleachers”, so to speak. I’ve learned a ton just by reading.

It's really great to see how much we accomplish simply by sharing information and opinions online. But it's also a bit sad that the audiophiles seem to argue and disrespect each other so much. There's something like Godwin's Law at work here, where the probability that a slur like "audiophool" or "pedant objectivist" will be used approaches 100% as a thread grows in length.

So, I have something to add to the discussion. Not about the listening equipment, but about the listeners.

Yes, unfortunately I am no engineer - I’m part of the reviled class of subhuman leeches known as marketers. A big part of my job is to study and genuinely understand what motivates people, so we can figure out why they buy the things they buy.

I have been in product (note: NOT the same as engineering) and marketing for most of my career, both in acoustics (slinging pyramid foam on eBay) and consumer audio (Bluetooth speakers & headphones), among several other things. I’ve also been an audio hobbyist since my teens, took an audio minor in college, and have spent time reading discussions on various audio-related forums all the while.

In this time, I have observed that there are fundamentally different audiophile philosophies that don't appear to be clearly understood. While there are more than a few attempts to classify audiophiles out there, none I’ve seen are completely serious, most are jokes, and most tend to confound behaviors and basic motivations.

My goal here is to propose a legitimate way to classify audiophiles - without judgment. My hope is that by doing so, we can argue less, appreciate each other more, and generally get on with discussing audio instead of thinking the other guy is some kind of idiot or lunatic.

With all that incredibly long preamble out of the way, here’s my view of how to classify audiophiles. My goal is to write each description in such a way that the people described would actually (mostly?) agree with it, and that others might start to see the point in it.

Each category is defined by the fundamental philosophy or top priority among the group. You may share behaviors of many groups, but (if I have thought this through correctly) you can’t belong to more than one group.

The Nominal Audiophile: Their most important belief is that a person should not spend more than a certain amount on audio equipment. However, they do want the best sound they can get within that budget (and usually without inconveniencing themselves in any real way.)

This actually describes most people who think about their audio purchases even a little bit… which is not everyone, but it’s some. I classify them as audiophiles, because in any given decision-making they do around audio, “sound quality” (however they understand that term) is their first priority once the budget is met. (I’ve done the research, this is true.)

They DO care about sound, just not as much as self-described audiophiles do. Most of them will start a given comment with “I’m no audiophile,” but we know the truth… they’re still technically audiophiles. The other 3 types of audiophile almost always start out as a Nominal Audiophile before they catch the bug.


The Objectivist Audiophile: Their most important belief is that exact, distortion-free reproduction of the recording is the highest and perhaps only sensible goal of audio equipment.

Objectivists trust numbers over their own ears, and especially other people’s ears. They believe that all audible phenomena are measurable in principle, and many of them believe that all relevant audible phenomena are measurable with existing equipment and psychoacoustics. Objectivists have bravely met the hard truth that even their own ears can’t be trusted, and make the most of it, satisfied in the knowledge they are actually moving ever closer to an authentic version of the true recording.

Objectivists almost always allow some room for preference (at some point, especially with regard to the in-room sound field, even the notion of “fidelity” itself becomes a bit subjective) - but they are much less willing to entertain a preference (even their own) that is for objectively lower-fidelity reproduction.

If the measurements are good and what objectivists hear is bad, the most likely explanation is that the right measurements have not yet been performed, the problem will eventually be rooted out numerically. True objectivists will not slaughter sacred cows, because they don’t care about the concept of “sacred” or even “cow” - they simply want to know whether their pound of beef weighs exactly 453.592 grams.

Objectivists often agree about equipment, because they will tend to read the same measurements, and credible measurements generally trump other opinion-drivers for objectivists. However, objectivists are often troubled by the failure (from their point of view) of other audiophiles to recognize what they see as obvious superiority / inferiority in equipment.

The Subjectivist Audiophile: Their most important belief is simply that audio equipment should sound good to the owner.

“If it sounds good, it is good”. Notably, this is also the dictum of the musician and producer. Their core belief is that they should enjoy what’s coming out of their system - that's what "good" means here, nothing more or less. If the numbers say their sound is flawed, but they like the sound, then to hell with the numbers. Even revising the audio actively and creatively (via DSP, strong tube distortion, etc) is fine within reason.

Subjectivists rarely reject measurements out of hand, and some rely heavily on them to narrow down their choices, but measurements are a means to an end, not the philosophical bedrock of their approach to audio. Subjectivists may or may not totally trust their ears over measurements, but at the end of the day, their ears run the show.

Subjectivists disagree a great deal about equipment, because de gustibus non est disputandum - there’s no accounting for taste. One man’s trash is another man’s favorite tube amp. They also vary in how much faith they place in measurements and specs, opinions of reviewers, feelings about certain types of technology, and so on. As such, what seems obvious to one will seem insane to another - that’s just how it goes.

The Romantic Audiophile: (Romantic in the sense of the romantic authors and composers, not love and marriage.) Their most important beliefs are that the experience matters most, that audio equipment should support the listening experience in any way they see fit, and that human judgment of the experience trumps all other factors.

The difference between the listening experience and good sound seems subtle, but it’s cataclysmically huge. Subjectivists might not agree about what good sound is, but few of them would argue that sufficiently advanced technology could not - in principle - quantify the differences they debate. Romantic Audiophiles feel that the experience of listening, and the impact of equipment on that experience, are fundamentally not quantifiable or reducible, nor is there much point in trying. Placebo effect, DBT ABX, LCR… these things miss the point.

To understand the Romantic Audiophile another way, try to understand this: Is the experience of looking at the Mona Lisa the same as looking at an absolutely identical reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Objectively, of course it is. We just said they’re identical, right? But if you know one is a fake and one is real… you may answer “of course it’s not the same!” One was touched by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, and one was made in a lab or something. The viewing experience is therefore nothing alike… this is Romantic Audiophilia in a nutshell.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, Romantics don’t actually tend to discount, ignore, or completely disbelieve measurements - but they also believe that a listening experience is genuinely more than the sum of its parts. They also tend to doubt that measurements capture everything they hear. For Romantics, measurements are more like the index page of a book than the whole story.

Romantics surprisingly don’t often seem to disagree much about decent equipment, but very rarely place another person’s account of a listening experience above their own. They can appreciate the experiences a wide variety of equipment can provide, without attempting to create a ranking, they are often content to simply describe. Romantics have a hard time understanding the Objectivist fixation on measurements above experience (since they value experience above all), and don't really care if their purchases make sense to anyone else. Acquiring strange new gear really is their hobby, because that's a way to create a new experience, regardless of what it "actually" sounds like.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ultimately, I think all of these points of view are valid in their own right. There is no single correct way to enjoy listening to music. (Objectivists might have a hard time with this... I do... but remember that "lower distortion is better" is still just an opinion.)

I count myself in the Objectivist segment, maybe the Romantic segment only while at concerts… Whatever your ‘alignment’, It’s easy to see how we might end up misunderstanding each other. Although we’re all “audiophiles”, we approach the same equipment with divergent goals.

It’s as if we have whiskey, water, and gatorade drinkers all discussing “drinking” and “beverages”, but without having first understood inebriation, thirst, or exercise. Each will seem slightly insane to the others.

I should also note that this doesn’t describe every variance of opinion I’ve noticed, nor every type of audio buyer. Another big split in opinion is whether ‘apparent resemblance to a live performance’ is the most appropriate goal of fidelity or not. There are non-audiophile budget-driven buyers who simply want to hear something louder than their phone or TV. And there are conspicuous-consumption buyers who buy expensive speakers for the same reason they buy expensive cars they don’t know how to drive properly.

Anyway, I'm interested in whether these descriptions make sense to people, hopefully they are not offensive to anyone!
You misunderstand the Latin saying (not attributable to any Roman author) "de gustibus non est disputandum." Since we like science here and experts, etc., I thought I'd point out that it really means that there ought to be no argument about taste (i.e. because everyone knows that taste is subjective.). Granted there is a group of audiophiles out there who like to argue a lot, but its not "because de gustibus non est disputandum." Quite the opposite. That would be a reason to not reply to a stranger that their favorite record sounds like crap in a living room you've never visited (I find a lot of such un-scientific behavior on ASR.). How could one ever know when there are so many other variables like the room itself, the recording mix, etc? In the English translaton, "accounting" really refers to tabulation and scientific measurement, pointing to the absurdity of trying to measure the unmeasurable, or pretending knowledge of the unknowable.
 

ozzy9832001

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2023
Messages
403
Likes
257
I don't really consider myself in any of those categories. I love music. It easily elicits an emotional response from me. It's not just background noise. When I was younger I could sit and listen to music for hours. Now my body won't allow me to sit for that long without regretting it the next day. One day I may focus on the bass lines or the drums or the guitars. I just want it to sound as good as it can. I love listening to a song I've heard 1000000x and hearing something new because I added a treatment, tweaked the toe in or an eq setting. It's exciting.
 

prerich

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2016
Messages
312
Likes
228
Taxonomies always come with implicit and explicit biases, classification is an act of judgement, which may entertain, offend, confound, or clarify. It all depends on the context. The question I have is when is a taxonomy like this useful and when is it not? We humans are quite complicated, I find myself in the realm of subjectivism and objectivism at the same time without any sense of contradictions.
Love this post!!!! Bravo Zulu!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS

Descartes

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 27, 2020
Messages
2,104
Likes
1,077
That's like saying your doctor's opinion and a random stranger on the Internet giving medical advice are as valid as each other. This is definitely wrong.
In a few years AI may change that the computer might be smarter than our physicians!
 

Spocko

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
1,621
Likes
2,999
Location
Southern California
Well, to give a shorter accounting of why I think this is useful: People are constantly arguing about audio equipment, and worse, disputing whether others are enjoying music the right way, without understanding each others' premises. My thought was to help make those premises understandable.

It's not about putting people in boxes so much as understanding what other people's priorities are, when they aren't the same as yours. This post is just my attempt to explain my understanding of the different points of view that seem to be out there.
I agree with your premise about better understanding where people's opinions come from as sometimes, objectivist vs subjectivist arguments are like one side arguing about the benefits of water while the other is talking about the benefits of a low carb diet because both are drinking from the same water bottle.

I'm most closely affiliated with the Romantic stereophile because I'm completely absorbed in the "interesting" and outlandish approaches that may also have great sound that is near good enough to be indistinguishable from objective benchmarks (within audible hearing of course), which means I would consider plasma, planar, open baffle, coaxial and cardioid speakers as long as they have a design motif that will start conversations with strangers over cocktails. I believe my gear should bring people together and create interest about hifi equipment. I don't mind rotating equipment because I already know what "accurate" sounds like with my pro gear, but sometimes I'm curious about the inaccurate sounds of tube "warmth", planar "transparency" and horn "dynamics".
 

NoCategories

New Member
Joined
May 18, 2023
Messages
3
Likes
4
There are no categories.

That's my mantra anyway, as an antidote to the sometimes-unfair and often-restrictive categories that occur all too frequently, putting us at odds with each other and ourselves. Maybe the mantra isn't literally true. Categories can be useful, and these were amusing to read, as a kind of thought experiment. I especially appreciated the taking-no-sides approach. Even though it's really difficult to do, it's an approach that's worth the effort.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
Hi all, long time listener, first time poster here. Apologies in advance, 1500 word essay incoming:

TL;DR: ITT I try to classify all audiophiles without mocking anyone.

I think it’s amazing how much contributors to this and other forums have advanced the state of the hobby as well as the industry “from the bleachers”, so to speak. I’ve learned a ton just by reading.

It's really great to see how much we accomplish simply by sharing information and opinions online. But it's also a bit sad that the audiophiles seem to argue and disrespect each other so much. There's something like Godwin's Law at work here, where the probability that a slur like "audiophool" or "pedant objectivist" will be used approaches 100% as a thread grows in length.

So, I have something to add to the discussion. Not about the listening equipment, but about the listeners.

Yes, unfortunately I am no engineer - I’m part of the reviled class of subhuman leeches known as marketers. A big part of my job is to study and genuinely understand what motivates people, so we can figure out why they buy the things they buy.

I have been in product (note: NOT the same as engineering) and marketing for most of my career, both in acoustics (slinging pyramid foam on eBay) and consumer audio (Bluetooth speakers & headphones), among several other things. I’ve also been an audio hobbyist since my teens, took an audio minor in college, and have spent time reading discussions on various audio-related forums all the while.

In this time, I have observed that there are fundamentally different audiophile philosophies that don't appear to be clearly understood. While there are more than a few attempts to classify audiophiles out there, none I’ve seen are completely serious, most are jokes, and most tend to confound behaviors and basic motivations.

My goal here is to propose a legitimate way to classify audiophiles - without judgment. My hope is that by doing so, we can argue less, appreciate each other more, and generally get on with discussing audio instead of thinking the other guy is some kind of idiot or lunatic.

With all that incredibly long preamble out of the way, here’s my view of how to classify audiophiles. My goal is to write each description in such a way that the people described would actually (mostly?) agree with it, and that others might start to see the point in it.

Each category is defined by the fundamental philosophy or top priority among the group. You may share behaviors of many groups, but (if I have thought this through correctly) you can’t belong to more than one group.

The Nominal Audiophile: Their most important belief is that a person should not spend more than a certain amount on audio equipment. However, they do want the best sound they can get within that budget (and usually without inconveniencing themselves in any real way.)

This actually describes most people who think about their audio purchases even a little bit… which is not everyone, but it’s some. I classify them as audiophiles, because in any given decision-making they do around audio, “sound quality” (however they understand that term) is their first priority once the budget is met. (I’ve done the research, this is true.)

They DO care about sound, just not as much as self-described audiophiles do. Most of them will start a given comment with “I’m no audiophile,” but we know the truth… they’re still technically audiophiles. The other 3 types of audiophile almost always start out as a Nominal Audiophile before they catch the bug.


The Objectivist Audiophile: Their most important belief is that exact, distortion-free reproduction of the recording is the highest and perhaps only sensible goal of audio equipment.

Objectivists trust numbers over their own ears, and especially other people’s ears. They believe that all audible phenomena are measurable in principle, and many of them believe that all relevant audible phenomena are measurable with existing equipment and psychoacoustics. Objectivists have bravely met the hard truth that even their own ears can’t be trusted, and make the most of it, satisfied in the knowledge they are actually moving ever closer to an authentic version of the true recording.

Objectivists almost always allow some room for preference (at some point, especially with regard to the in-room sound field, even the notion of “fidelity” itself becomes a bit subjective) - but they are much less willing to entertain a preference (even their own) that is for objectively lower-fidelity reproduction.

If the measurements are good and what objectivists hear is bad, the most likely explanation is that the right measurements have not yet been performed, the problem will eventually be rooted out numerically. True objectivists will not slaughter sacred cows, because they don’t care about the concept of “sacred” or even “cow” - they simply want to know whether their pound of beef weighs exactly 453.592 grams.

Objectivists often agree about equipment, because they will tend to read the same measurements, and credible measurements generally trump other opinion-drivers for objectivists. However, objectivists are often troubled by the failure (from their point of view) of other audiophiles to recognize what they see as obvious superiority / inferiority in equipment.

The Subjectivist Audiophile: Their most important belief is simply that audio equipment should sound good to the owner.

“If it sounds good, it is good”. Notably, this is also the dictum of the musician and producer. Their core belief is that they should enjoy what’s coming out of their system - that's what "good" means here, nothing more or less. If the numbers say their sound is flawed, but they like the sound, then to hell with the numbers. Even revising the audio actively and creatively (via DSP, strong tube distortion, etc) is fine within reason.

Subjectivists rarely reject measurements out of hand, and some rely heavily on them to narrow down their choices, but measurements are a means to an end, not the philosophical bedrock of their approach to audio. Subjectivists may or may not totally trust their ears over measurements, but at the end of the day, their ears run the show.

Subjectivists disagree a great deal about equipment, because de gustibus non est disputandum - there’s no accounting for taste. One man’s trash is another man’s favorite tube amp. They also vary in how much faith they place in measurements and specs, opinions of reviewers, feelings about certain types of technology, and so on. As such, what seems obvious to one will seem insane to another - that’s just how it goes.

The Romantic Audiophile: (Romantic in the sense of the romantic authors and composers, not love and marriage.) Their most important beliefs are that the experience matters most, that audio equipment should support the listening experience in any way they see fit, and that human judgment of the experience trumps all other factors.

The difference between the listening experience and good sound seems subtle, but it’s cataclysmically huge. Subjectivists might not agree about what good sound is, but few of them would argue that sufficiently advanced technology could not - in principle - quantify the differences they debate. Romantic Audiophiles feel that the experience of listening, and the impact of equipment on that experience, are fundamentally not quantifiable or reducible, nor is there much point in trying. Placebo effect, DBT ABX, LCR… these things miss the point.

To understand the Romantic Audiophile another way, try to understand this: Is the experience of looking at the Mona Lisa the same as looking at an absolutely identical reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Objectively, of course it is. We just said they’re identical, right? But if you know one is a fake and one is real… you may answer “of course it’s not the same!” One was touched by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, and one was made in a lab or something. The viewing experience is therefore nothing alike… this is Romantic Audiophilia in a nutshell.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, Romantics don’t actually tend to discount, ignore, or completely disbelieve measurements - but they also believe that a listening experience is genuinely more than the sum of its parts. They also tend to doubt that measurements capture everything they hear. For Romantics, measurements are more like the index page of a book than the whole story.

Romantics surprisingly don’t often seem to disagree much about decent equipment, but very rarely place another person’s account of a listening experience above their own. They can appreciate the experiences a wide variety of equipment can provide, without attempting to create a ranking, they are often content to simply describe. Romantics have a hard time understanding the Objectivist fixation on measurements above experience (since they value experience above all), and don't really care if their purchases make sense to anyone else. Acquiring strange new gear really is their hobby, because that's a way to create a new experience, regardless of what it "actually" sounds like.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ultimately, I think all of these points of view are valid in their own right. There is no single correct way to enjoy listening to music. (Objectivists might have a hard time with this... I do... but remember that "lower distortion is better" is still just an opinion.)

I count myself in the Objectivist segment, maybe the Romantic segment only while at concerts… Whatever your ‘alignment’, It’s easy to see how we might end up misunderstanding each other. Although we’re all “audiophiles”, we approach the same equipment with divergent goals.

It’s as if we have whiskey, water, and gatorade drinkers all discussing “drinking” and “beverages”, but without having first understood inebriation, thirst, or exercise. Each will seem slightly insane to the others.

I should also note that this doesn’t describe every variance of opinion I’ve noticed, nor every type of audio buyer. Another big split in opinion is whether ‘apparent resemblance to a live performance’ is the most appropriate goal of fidelity or not. There are non-audiophile budget-driven buyers who simply want to hear something louder than their phone or TV. And there are conspicuous-consumption buyers who buy expensive speakers for the same reason they buy expensive cars they don’t know how to drive properly.

Anyway, I'm interested in whether these descriptions make sense to people, hopefully they are not offensive to anyone!
In some 46 years as an audio enthusiast, this is the most coherent explanation of audiophiles that I have seen. I have experienced all three types, especially during my physics PhD work when I was close to the staff of a high end audio dealer and was considered something of a “golden ear.” The worst I saw was a person who wanted, and bought, Klipschorns to hang from his ceiling. It worked after some fashion, I understand, but was an extreme of the Romantic type as defined here! Surely Klipsch would have rolled over in his grave.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
My goal here is to propose a legitimate way to classify audiophiles - without judgment.

Rather contradictory goal I think. I don't think we need this kind of thing. Nothing to be gained by it really. Dividing people up by how they approach their enjoyment of music hardly seems productive to me.
Possibly not productive but very amusing, and interesting in much the same way as birdwatching. Different species traits are fun to observe.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
I know plenty of subjectivists that have zero, or actually negative use for measurements. The higher up the ladder you go in price, the more this becomes a norm.
This seems to place them firmly in Romantic as defined here.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
Hi all, long time listener, first time poster here. Apologies in advance, 1500 word essay incoming:

TL;DR: ITT I try to classify all audiophiles without mocking anyone.

I think it’s amazing how much contributors to this and other forums have advanced the state of the hobby as well as the industry “from the bleachers”, so to speak. I’ve learned a ton just by reading.

It's really great to see how much we accomplish simply by sharing information and opinions online. But it's also a bit sad that the audiophiles seem to argue and disrespect each other so much. There's something like Godwin's Law at work here, where the probability that a slur like "audiophool" or "pedant objectivist" will be used approaches 100% as a thread grows in length.

So, I have something to add to the discussion. Not about the listening equipment, but about the listeners.

Yes, unfortunately I am no engineer - I’m part of the reviled class of subhuman leeches known as marketers. A big part of my job is to study and genuinely understand what motivates people, so we can figure out why they buy the things they buy.

I have been in product (note: NOT the same as engineering) and marketing for most of my career, both in acoustics (slinging pyramid foam on eBay) and consumer audio (Bluetooth speakers & headphones), among several other things. I’ve also been an audio hobbyist since my teens, took an audio minor in college, and have spent time reading discussions on various audio-related forums all the while.

In this time, I have observed that there are fundamentally different audiophile philosophies that don't appear to be clearly understood. While there are more than a few attempts to classify audiophiles out there, none I’ve seen are completely serious, most are jokes, and most tend to confound behaviors and basic motivations.

My goal here is to propose a legitimate way to classify audiophiles - without judgment. My hope is that by doing so, we can argue less, appreciate each other more, and generally get on with discussing audio instead of thinking the other guy is some kind of idiot or lunatic.

With all that incredibly long preamble out of the way, here’s my view of how to classify audiophiles. My goal is to write each description in such a way that the people described would actually (mostly?) agree with it, and that others might start to see the point in it.

Each category is defined by the fundamental philosophy or top priority among the group. You may share behaviors of many groups, but (if I have thought this through correctly) you can’t belong to more than one group.

The Nominal Audiophile: Their most important belief is that a person should not spend more than a certain amount on audio equipment. However, they do want the best sound they can get within that budget (and usually without inconveniencing themselves in any real way.)

This actually describes most people who think about their audio purchases even a little bit… which is not everyone, but it’s some. I classify them as audiophiles, because in any given decision-making they do around audio, “sound quality” (however they understand that term) is their first priority once the budget is met. (I’ve done the research, this is true.)

They DO care about sound, just not as much as self-described audiophiles do. Most of them will start a given comment with “I’m no audiophile,” but we know the truth… they’re still technically audiophiles. The other 3 types of audiophile almost always start out as a Nominal Audiophile before they catch the bug.


The Objectivist Audiophile: Their most important belief is that exact, distortion-free reproduction of the recording is the highest and perhaps only sensible goal of audio equipment.

Objectivists trust numbers over their own ears, and especially other people’s ears. They believe that all audible phenomena are measurable in principle, and many of them believe that all relevant audible phenomena are measurable with existing equipment and psychoacoustics. Objectivists have bravely met the hard truth that even their own ears can’t be trusted, and make the most of it, satisfied in the knowledge they are actually moving ever closer to an authentic version of the true recording.

Objectivists almost always allow some room for preference (at some point, especially with regard to the in-room sound field, even the notion of “fidelity” itself becomes a bit subjective) - but they are much less willing to entertain a preference (even their own) that is for objectively lower-fidelity reproduction.

If the measurements are good and what objectivists hear is bad, the most likely explanation is that the right measurements have not yet been performed, the problem will eventually be rooted out numerically. True objectivists will not slaughter sacred cows, because they don’t care about the concept of “sacred” or even “cow” - they simply want to know whether their pound of beef weighs exactly 453.592 grams.

Objectivists often agree about equipment, because they will tend to read the same measurements, and credible measurements generally trump other opinion-drivers for objectivists. However, objectivists are often troubled by the failure (from their point of view) of other audiophiles to recognize what they see as obvious superiority / inferiority in equipment.

The Subjectivist Audiophile: Their most important belief is simply that audio equipment should sound good to the owner.

“If it sounds good, it is good”. Notably, this is also the dictum of the musician and producer. Their core belief is that they should enjoy what’s coming out of their system - that's what "good" means here, nothing more or less. If the numbers say their sound is flawed, but they like the sound, then to hell with the numbers. Even revising the audio actively and creatively (via DSP, strong tube distortion, etc) is fine within reason.

Subjectivists rarely reject measurements out of hand, and some rely heavily on them to narrow down their choices, but measurements are a means to an end, not the philosophical bedrock of their approach to audio. Subjectivists may or may not totally trust their ears over measurements, but at the end of the day, their ears run the show.

Subjectivists disagree a great deal about equipment, because de gustibus non est disputandum - there’s no accounting for taste. One man’s trash is another man’s favorite tube amp. They also vary in how much faith they place in measurements and specs, opinions of reviewers, feelings about certain types of technology, and so on. As such, what seems obvious to one will seem insane to another - that’s just how it goes.

The Romantic Audiophile: (Romantic in the sense of the romantic authors and composers, not love and marriage.) Their most important beliefs are that the experience matters most, that audio equipment should support the listening experience in any way they see fit, and that human judgment of the experience trumps all other factors.

The difference between the listening experience and good sound seems subtle, but it’s cataclysmically huge. Subjectivists might not agree about what good sound is, but few of them would argue that sufficiently advanced technology could not - in principle - quantify the differences they debate. Romantic Audiophiles feel that the experience of listening, and the impact of equipment on that experience, are fundamentally not quantifiable or reducible, nor is there much point in trying. Placebo effect, DBT ABX, LCR… these things miss the point.

To understand the Romantic Audiophile another way, try to understand this: Is the experience of looking at the Mona Lisa the same as looking at an absolutely identical reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Objectively, of course it is. We just said they’re identical, right? But if you know one is a fake and one is real… you may answer “of course it’s not the same!” One was touched by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci, and one was made in a lab or something. The viewing experience is therefore nothing alike… this is Romantic Audiophilia in a nutshell.

Perhaps counter-intuitively, Romantics don’t actually tend to discount, ignore, or completely disbelieve measurements - but they also believe that a listening experience is genuinely more than the sum of its parts. They also tend to doubt that measurements capture everything they hear. For Romantics, measurements are more like the index page of a book than the whole story.

Romantics surprisingly don’t often seem to disagree much about decent equipment, but very rarely place another person’s account of a listening experience above their own. They can appreciate the experiences a wide variety of equipment can provide, without attempting to create a ranking, they are often content to simply describe. Romantics have a hard time understanding the Objectivist fixation on measurements above experience (since they value experience above all), and don't really care if their purchases make sense to anyone else. Acquiring strange new gear really is their hobby, because that's a way to create a new experience, regardless of what it "actually" sounds like.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ultimately, I think all of these points of view are valid in their own right. There is no single correct way to enjoy listening to music. (Objectivists might have a hard time with this... I do... but remember that "lower distortion is better" is still just an opinion.)

I count myself in the Objectivist segment, maybe the Romantic segment only while at concerts… Whatever your ‘alignment’, It’s easy to see how we might end up misunderstanding each other. Although we’re all “audiophiles”, we approach the same equipment with divergent goals.

It’s as if we have whiskey, water, and gatorade drinkers all discussing “drinking” and “beverages”, but without having first understood inebriation, thirst, or exercise. Each will seem slightly insane to the others.

I should also note that this doesn’t describe every variance of opinion I’ve noticed, nor every type of audio buyer. Another big split in opinion is whether ‘apparent resemblance to a live performance’ is the most appropriate goal of fidelity or not. There are non-audiophile budget-driven buyers who simply want to hear something louder than their phone or TV. And there are conspicuous-consumption buyers who buy expensive speakers for the same reason they buy expensive cars they don’t know how to drive properly.

Anyway, I'm interested in whether these descriptions make sense to people, hopefully they are not offensive to anyone!
I cannot object to any audiophiles. In my experience the money of all helps fund my hobby.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
I would propose a fifth category - The Music Lover. Their most important outcome is to hear the music as it was recorded and will use a combination of measurements, listening and others opinion (often in that order) to guide their journey.

The biggest challenge we face as humans interacting on a forum is the fact that we are not designed for this type of interaction. 70% to 90% of communication is non-verbal so that leaves a very wide margin for error. I do however strongly agree with the spirit of the sentiment.
I strongly agree with the comment below this. Unless you make your living with this stuff then something like fun is the goal. After all, if music were not enjoyable then neither musicians or listeners would care.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
I've seen you say this in different threads and you do have a good point, but I don't think it is the entire point.

There are, among experts, consensus of agreement that comes about because of reasons other than where the overwhelming weight of evidence lies. Scientists, engineers, doctors, all kinds of highly educated people can be swayed/persuaded by the greater (by numbers) opinion of equally qualified people around them. It tends to take very unusual person to risk censure/punishment/derision and stick their head above the parapet to challenge received wisdom. Most people practising science of one sort or another are employing largely received wisdom, they are not themselves at the cutting edge of their particular field.

I would say that a certain segment of objectivists, as it pertains to hi-fi (and, dare I say it, this forum), are purely following other people whose opinion they respect. There are people on here who just restate what respected/learned others say without a full understanding and call themselves 'objectivists'. I'm not sure in what way this is much different from being the follower of a religion.

The interesting thing is that those that know the most, know how much they don't know and are open to sensible suggestion/argument, while those who are followers/believers in 'the science/objectivism' don't seem to understand that it is both flawed and incomplete (what science is or will ever be complete?) and are far more strident in their denunciations of anything running counter to received knowledge.
The last paragraph is important
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
I despise the usual connotatioms of the term audiophile. It is packed with sectaria tendencies that involve dogma about Diana Krall, luddite attitudes (active speakers are bad, class D is terrible, vynil gets you higher than angel dust...), and prejudice against non-music sounds (home theatre and multichannel is for plebs, podcasts are for nerds...).

But all that speaks more about my phobias than about the general reality, so the most rational approach i can think is this:

If you want quality sound, first you have to get a good definition of what is "quality". Usually the most common is "closest to natural". But since that is bs knowing many films are not "natural" (I have never seen an X Wing in the sky) or music can be perfectly "artificial" (Kraftwerk anyone?),
so perhaps we can leave it to "playing the source closest to what it contains".

Then, after that, the only element left is how to get there. Sound is a mechanical wave, hence, its description falls under what physics describes. To reach that mechanical wave, there are steps that are grounded on devices that work due to electricity, another field covered by physics. Last but not least, our brains give a response to that mechanical wave, hence, the last element in the mix are psychology and physiology.

This approach to sound is effective because it can be turned into an univocal language. This allows it to be shared easily, tested in different conditions, and most important for our pockets, predicted.

Poetry is great and even a potential source of knowledge, but it is not a univocal language, that is what makes the approach more falible. If I'm going to spend money on a device, I want the best possible knowledge beforehand.
I get the Luddite references but what is it you refer to about Diana
Krall?
 
Last edited:

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
Segmentation can be unifying. For instance there are online resources which can be used to assess and understand personality types, and from there people with this or that personality type can (and often do!) choose to view those with different personality types with more tolerance for differences as well as more appreciation for what the other does well.

Segmentation can also be divisive, as we have all experienced.

I think you are trying to be unifying rather than divisive, to increase understanding and comraderie rather than justify hostility, and to that end I think your initial four segments are valid, based on my inherently limited experiences. Hadn't been aware of the "Romantic" variation, but now having read your description, I recognize it. I thoroughly applaud your effort, though this isn't an area when I can make much of a contribution.
This has all been fun and thought provoking, worth following and trying to contribute to. To put my experience in perspective, I went until my junior year of high school listening to a mono tube “record player” whose only enhancement had been my father adding an outboard speaker using a 6”x9” oval car driver. I enjoyed the music. Also, there was live music both became my sister was involved and ultimately because I was. When I was in my junior year, I “inherited “ a discarded “stereo” that was little better but started me thinking. I quickly concluded that transducers are the key and are both the hardest to design and the most interesting. I proceeded to design and build my own speakers incorporating some advanced (for 1968) concepts including trapezoidal enclosures to break standing waves and toroidal ( at the driver outer radius) tuned base reflex ports. The speakers were good enough to enjoy and, indeed, my father used them until his death in 2012. In fact I still own them but I am afraid to listen to them lest their actual performance fail to equal or even approach my memory. I moved to a second, improved, design followed by corner horns. By then I had moved to fully separate tube electronics and high performance tape recorder. I was happy with my system until, in my first year of graduate school, someone decided to forcibly remove it. I still miss my Thorens TD-124 with hand built Teak case. As I was more focused on my physics PhD class work than audio, I used the insurance money to enter the audio hobby more as a consumer. I made generally good choices using a combination of objective and subjective data, benefitting from having friends in high end audio from whom I could borrow equipment to try. That I succeeded is reflected in the fact that to date I have all parts of my system circa 1980 and their sound is still excellent. I was not involved in audio for the 37 years I spent building my ongoing professional career in high energy astrophysics. I make experimental measurements of cosmic particles moving at from .5 of the speed of light to nearly light speed ( think of a single proton with the kinetic energy of a brick dropped from a two story building). I am quite familiar with electronic systems. Then, a couple of years ago, my adult son, now a physics PhD, involved me in “Head-Fi”. The transducers ( headphones and IEMs) are still key but now the source includes a DAC and a streaming service. I am overjoyed at the access to essentially all recorded music. I still have vinyl, of course, and my son is quite into vinyl reproduction. Of course now there are new considerations like DS DAC vs multibit and even binary weighted resistor ladder vs R-2R. Happily there are excellent solutions to both the electronics and “earspeakers”. I am having fun again! I truly appreciate ASR for its excellent content, effort toward accurate representation of testing and statements of applicable limitations. I enjoy more subjective testing also, but here is where I am best served. Many thanks Amir and all commenters!
 

Axo1989

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
2,804
Likes
2,807
Location
Sydney
This has all been fun and thought provoking, worth following and trying to contribute to. To put my experience in perspective, I went until my junior year of high school listening to a mono tube “record player” whose only enhancement had been my father adding an outboard speaker using a 6”x9” oval car driver. I enjoyed the music. Also, there was live music both became my sister was involved and ultimately because I was. When I was in my junior year, I “inherited “ a discarded “stereo” that was little better but started me thinking. I quickly concluded that transducers are the key and are both the hardest to design and the most interesting. I proceeded to design and build my own speakers incorporating some advanced (for 1968) concepts including trapezoidal enclosures to break standing waves and toroidal ( at the driver outer radius) tuned base reflex ports. The speakers were good enough to enjoy and, indeed, my father used them until his death in 2012. In fact I still own them but I am afraid to listen to them lest their actual performance fail to equal or even approach my memory. I moved to a second, improved, design followed by corner horns. By then I had moved to fully separate tube electronics and high performance tape recorder. I was happy with my system until, in my first year of graduate school, someone decided to forcibly remove it. I still miss my Thorens TD-124 with hand built Teak case. As I was more focused on my physics PhD class work than audio, I used the insurance money to enter the audio hobby more as a consumer. I made generally good choices using a combination of objective and subjective data, benefitting from having friends in high end audio from whom I could borrow equipment to try. That I succeeded is reflected in the fact that to date I have all parts of my system circa 1980 and their sound is still excellent. I was not involved in audio for the 37 years I spent building my ongoing professional career in high energy astrophysics. I make experimental measurements of cosmic particles moving at from .5 of the speed of light to nearly light speed ( think of a single proton with the kinetic energy of a brick dropped from a two story building). I am quite familiar with electronic systems. Then, a couple of years ago, my adult son, now a physics PhD, involved me in “Head-Fi”. The transducers ( headphones and IEMs) are still key but now the source includes a DAC and a streaming service. I am overjoyed at the access to essentially all recorded music. I still have vinyl, of course, and my son is quite into vinyl reproduction. Of course now there are new considerations like DS DAC vs multibit and even binary weighted resistor ladder vs R-2R. Happily there are excellent solutions to both the electronics and “earspeakers”. I am having fun again! I truly appreciate ASR for its excellent content, effort toward accurate representation of testing and statements of applicable limitations. I enjoy more subjective testing also, but here is where I am best served. Many thanks Amir and all commenters!

Paragraphs, mate, paragraphs. Just a moment or two more to structure/present your thoughts and I'm much more likely to read them.
 
Last edited:

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
I get the Luddite references but what is it you refer to about Diana
Krall?
Still would like to understand the Diana Krall reference. She is a fine singer and I could understand her work being used as a reference for some purposes but it seemed negative somehow.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Nothing against Diana Krall, but high-end audio salesman very often use her music as a demo track. Perhaps that's the reference.
 

jwmitchell

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
6
Paragraphs, mate, paragraphs. Just a moment or two more to structure/present your thoughts and I'm much more likely to read them.
Absolutely great point! I let myself fall into a trap of writing stream of consciousness and not for a reader. Clearly, if I am going to engage here I should think about better organization. Thanks for the comment!

I enjoy this hobby and like sharing with thoughtful people. Most of my time is spent with physicists who, in spite of their many good qualities, are often much more ulititarian about things like electronics.
 

fpitas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 7, 2022
Messages
9,885
Likes
14,191
Location
Northern Virginia, USA
Absolutely great point! I let myself fall into a trap of writing stream of consciousness and not for a reader. Clearly, if I am going to engage here I should think about better organization. Thanks for the comment!

I enjoy this hobby and like sharing with thoughtful people. Most of my time is spent with physicists who, in spite of their many good qualities, are often much more ulititarian about things like electronics.
That's very tactful.
 

DMill

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
890
Likes
1,259
Still would like to understand the Diana Krall reference. She is a fine singer and I could understand her work being used as a reference for some purposes but it seemed negative somehow.
She is a fine singer but so often used as reference by audiophiles that she has been overplayed to the point of making it hard to listen to her. stairway to heaven is an amazing song, but if I don’t hear it for another 15 years I’d be more than ok with that if you get my drift.
 
Top Bottom