• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily 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".

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
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!
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
16,414
Likes
28,261
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.
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
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.

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.
 

Peluvius

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 5, 2021
Messages
498
Likes
489
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.
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
I would propose a fourth 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.

Agree, but I think this might be a distinction without a difference, isn't that just the objectivist point of view?

But yes, I think it should be implicit that we're pretty much all here focused on enjoying music (or sometimes movie audio, I guess.)

No, not me though, I only listen to test tones.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,481
Likes
179,678
Location
Seattle Area
Objectivists trust numbers over their own ears, and especially other people’s ears.
This is not true at all. Objectivists value controlled listening tests quite highly and more than numbers. And regardless, when it comes to speakers and headphones, they definitely listen and evaluate.
 

Peluvius

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 5, 2021
Messages
498
Likes
489
Agree, but I think this might be a distinction without a difference, isn't that just the objectivist point of view?

"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"

I do not believe all audible phenomena are measurable or can be measured.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,481
Likes
179,678
Location
Seattle Area
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.
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.
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
This is not true at all. Objectivists value controlled listening tests quite highly and more than numbers. And regardless, when it comes to speakers and headphones, they definitely listen and evaluate.
Good point. However, wouldn't a controlled listening test usually generate a quantitative result of some kind? Maybe "numbers" isn't the right word there.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,481
Likes
179,678
Location
Seattle Area
Ultimately, I think all of these points of view are valid in their own right.
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.
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
BTW I need to hit the hay, but I appreciate the notes, everyone. I would actually like to improve these definitions to the point that they seem agreeable and useful. At the end of the day I do think it's useful to be able to reach a mutual understanding of different points of view. Of course, since the premise is that audiophiles are highly argumentative, I will not hope for 100% agreement. :)
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
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.

When I say "valid" I mean logically tenable, but not necessarily equally correct. These are all opinions that have some internally consistent basis, even if the basis is unintelligible to other people.


I mean valid in the sense that liking potato chips because they are crunchy, and not liking potato chips because they are (too) crunchy, are equally valid opinions. That doesn't mean they are equally useful or even compatible.
 

VintageFlanker

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,375
Likes
11,776
Location
Paris
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.
That's not a category, but the exact definition of what any audiophile should be in the first place.
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
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 is why I made sure to use lots of weasel words like "rarely" and not "always" :)
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
That's not a category, but the exact definition of what any audiophile should be in the first place.
To me the definition of an audiophile is someone who explicitly cares about sound quality. All (?) audiophiles are music lovers, but not all music lovers are audiophiles. Technically it is possible to love music but never listen to a recording... (hey, they did this for hundreds of years before Edison came along!)
 
OP
kemmler3D

kemmler3D

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2022
Messages
334
Likes
732
Location
San Francisco
Also, perhaps it doesn't go without saying... I'm not endorsing or justifying any particular point of view here, only attempting to describe it. My personal views are quite well aligned with most of the folks here based on what I've read.
 

JSmith

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
3,240
Likes
7,376
Location
Algol Perseus

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
39,481
Likes
179,678
Location
Seattle Area
When I say "valid" I mean logically tenable, but not necessarily equally correct. These are all opinions that have some internally consistent basis, even if the basis is unintelligible to other people.
There is a large difference between opinions backed by facts and research and the ones that are not. Hence the analogy I provided. There is no equivalence here. All you can say is that these kinds of groups of audiophiles exist. Not that they have valid opinions.
 
Top Bottom