I find cheap audioman’s exaggerated “ every day schmuck” schtick to be fairly agonizing to sit through. But I watched the video.
I didn’t see myself in one of those categories.
I suppose I had to categorize myself it would be something like “An old school audiophile but with a healthy respect for science, and a distaste for bullshit.”
By old school I mean I still have tendencies I developed since becoming an ardent audiophile in the early 90s, reading the absolute sound Stereophile , etc.
If I want to investigate a piece of gear - and here I’m talking mostly about loudspeakers - then I find a way to listen to it (rather than just go on measurements even if they are available… although some measurements can rule out a speaker for me).
Although I had my room acoustically renovated, and aside from one dalliance with subwoofers and room EQ, my preferred method is still the old: buy a pair of speakers, spend time adjusting speaker position, and listening position, until I have pleased my ears.
I’ve long been interested in science and the philosophy of science, so for me measurements and blind testing have always been highly relevant in audio, and the way to ultimately weed out all the pseudoscience.
I just happened to not have the type of technical engineering aptitude that makes doing measurements fun and compelling.
Nor am I interested in DIY.
And if I am experimenting with something that’s on the edge of plausibility - eg speaker footers, tube rolling, I’m happy to acknowledge that without firmer evidence, the results could be simply due to my imagination. The fact that I bristle at anti-scientific claims, doesn’t mean that I need to be doing science at every moment in life. (if I’m trying out a new spaghetti sauce recipe, it’s not like I’m doing science).
And I’m old school in highly valuing swapping subjective impressions with other audiophiles. For me, the subjective effect is ultimately what it’s all about (which doesn’t commit one to be believing in woo ) and that’s why I value talking about it so much.