My journey as a music lover began in junior high school at the age of 11. I started amassing a collection of hip hop CDs and got my first Discman and boombox. I took pride in my CD collection and had a case that neatly displayed all the spines in my bedroom. I started DJing in high school, purchasing the same Technics SL-1200 mk2 turntables I have today. In my late 20s I rented a house, and for the first time had my own living room where I could set up a turntable with a receiver and some speakers. This was the first time I ever bought a phono cartridge for the sole purpose of listening, a Shure M97xE. In my early 30s I started getting interested in collecting vintage jazz records, which led to me learning lots more about all things audio, and that exploration continues to this day.

I think I first became aware of the term “audiophile” around 2009 when I started shopping for equipment upgrades. At that time I had one of my Technics 1200s sitting atop a cheap Technics receiver connected to a pair of equally cheap Technics speakers. I may have been in the habit of browsing the Audio Advisor website for new gear at that time, but I don’t think it ever crossed my mind that I might be an audiophile.

The first time I took a stance on the matter was shortly after joining the Steve Hoffman Music Forum in 2012. I decidedly did not identify as an audiophile and was eager to proclaim it online. I am aware that I share certain values with the audiophile community, or least the idea in my mind of what that community is. At the same time, I believe there are some key ways that I do not identify as an audiophile.

My interest in the topic was spurred on recently by one of the community’s most outspoken ambassadors, Steve Guttenberg. It came to my attention that Guttenberg likes to ask people he interviews if they are audiophiles. In the instances where they say ‘no’, he seems to usually reason his way to the conclusion that they are in fact audiophiles.

This habit of Guttenberg’s fascinates me. My instinct was initially to wonder why he cares if people think they are audiophiles, and what his motivation is for “revealing” to others that they are, in fact, what he thinks they are. I also had to ask myself: How would I respond to similar prodding, and why are some folks — myself included — hesitant to identify with him?

Most readers of this article will be aware of the rather negative reputation the audiophile community has in the mind of the general public. Audiophiles are often caricatured as obsessive elitists who buy expensive equipment, seeking sonic improvements that are at best questionable and at worst mere figments of their imaginations. Guttenberg and other audiophile figureheads like Audioholics founder Gene DellaSala clearly believe this is not a fair characterization of themselves, and it makes sense that they feel compelled to work toward creating a world where audiophiledom is celebrated more and negatively stereotyped less.

Below is a list I have compiled that is meant to serve as evidence both in favor of and against me being an audiophile. Perhaps needless to say, this is according to my own subjective idea of what an audiophile is, and I am not making any sort of attempt to arrive at an objective definition.

Ways That I Identify with Audiophiles:

1. I have conducted rigorous tests comparing equipment, formats, and pressings of records.

One of my earliest memories of this is when I bought my first iPod in 2004. In order to maximize space on the hard drive, I wanted to know the “breaking point” at which the bit rate of a digital audio file got so low that I could notice a degradation in sound quality. (In case you’re wondering, those fresh 24 year-old ears of mine determined that I could not distinguish between bitrates greater than or equal to 192 kbps for MP3 and 128 kbps for AAC.) Another early example of this would have been in 2012 when I conducted experiments comparing how various phono cartridges handled inner groove distortion. I have also taken great interest in comparing the mono and stereo releases of my favorite albums, and I have compared the CD and vinyl versions of some of my favorites as well. More recently I conducted many rigorous tests comparing speakers, amplifiers, and cartridges in my own home setup.

2. I care to purchase and own physical copies of my favorite recordings.

As a record collector this should be an obvious fact, but it is also true with respect to my current digital listening. I care about sources; I like to know who the mastering engineer was and that a given release is “official” (i.e. not licensed to an unfamiliar third party). This usually can’t be done with streaming and still appears less than common with digital downloads, which is why I collect CDs to this day.

3. I am very sensitive to noise within my system.

This is the ultimate manifestation of me paying attention to sonic details. Once I achieve an acceptably low level of noise with my playback though, I am for the most part happy. Beyond that, I am really only looking to tweak tonal balance. (The fact that I do not carry this attention to detail further is actually a key way I think I do not identify with audiophiles, which will come up again in the section below.)

4. I take great care of my equipment and regularly check to make sure it is working properly.

I think I have great attention to detail when it comes to noise (not sure if that is a gift or a curse), and as soon as I hear a problem with my system, I address it.

5. I know about different types of turntables, cartridges, styli, amplifiers, and speakers (e.g. the differences between solid state and tube amplifiers).

The technology implemented in audio equipment has always fascinated me and I love to learn about different types of equipment and how it all works.

6. I care about my hearing. I wear earplugs when I feel it is warranted and I get my hearing tested by an audiologist.

I actually had an incident in my early 30s where one day I suddenly felt like my hearing in my right ear was funky. After many visits to audiologists and ENTs, my hearing was decidedly fine for someone my age with the exception of some minor hearing damage in my right ear. This was likely caused by years of cupping my headphones to cue records as a DJ. I also listened to music very loud when I was younger, both in my car and on headphones, but it appears that I may have escaped the potential consequences of that foolish behavior without enduring much if any permanent harm. After the aforementioned incident, I started wearing earplugs at live music events and I am now very careful about being exposed to loud sounds of all types.

Ways That I Do Not Identify with Audiophiles:

1. I don’t use what I believe are vague words to describe what I am hearing.

This includes but is not limited to: transparent, musical, resolving, fast, warm, rich, lush, smooth, round, wooly, woody, natural, bloom, body, depth, presence, open, and slam. This leads nicely into my next point…

2. I don’t read audio magazines and have never been to an audio convention.

I guess you don’t have to be that crazy about audio gear to be an audiophile, but most of my friends who I either think of as audiophiles or who identify as such do both of these things. To be honest, I find audiophile reviews useless. The romantic language they use does nothing to help me better understand how something sounds; I always need to hear it myself. Regarding conventions, I understand why audiophiles would want to immerse themselves in gear, especially hearing how it sounds, but I guess I’m just not that curious about what my system could potentially sound like or what I’m missing out on (and I consider that a blessing).

3. I use modest, inexpensive equipment that I am very happy with, including moving magnet cartridges with conical styli and a Spin Clean record cleaning machine.

I often feel that auditioning and owning fancy, expensive equipment is simply not worth the headache, and I am especially suspicious that, once I do have that equipment, I won’t feel that the improvements justify the (often much) higher cost, if there even are any improvements. When I do think about upgrading my equipment, it isn’t because I feel my current system has “problems”. It’s usually just because I think another piece of gear looks cool and might also offer some minor enhancements. The “upgrades” I currently consider — a moving coil cartridge, an SET tube amplifier, higher sensitivity speakers, and a plinth-mounted turntable with a twelve-inch tonearm — all involve a higher level of “sophistication” and lots of potential tweaking, and I just don’t think I’m up to the task. If it happens, it will be a slow-moving process.

4. I don’t collect “audiophile pressings” of my favorite albums.

I have always liked the idea of enjoying music in basic “commercial” formats, just as things were before the idea of an audiophile release of an album even existed. I don’t need all-analog virgin vinyl pressed at RTI with Stoughton tip-on jackets, and I’d rather pay less anyway. Give me a “standard” release of an album as either a record or CD and I’m happy.

5. I don’t believe things like cables and power supplies have what I would call a “significant” impact on sound quality beyond some very basic, easily achievable standards related to noise.

Author Ethan “the audio myth buster” Winer is a hero of mine. Surely lots of audiophiles disagree with him, but he believes that measurements are useful tools capable of pointing to what we actually hear versus what we think we hear. I personally don’t feel measurements can account for every single thing about our listening experiences — which actually might qualify me more as an audiophile than not — but if I’m being honest, I do feel that a lot of what audiophiles claim to hear is in their heads and not a physical, acoustic phenomenon that is actually picked up by our ears. (This veers toward the territory of idealism in philosophy and the idea that what we hear is ultimately mental, but I will avoid going down that rabbit hole.)

6. When operating optimally (i.e. without distortion), I don’t believe amplifiers make a “significant” contribution to the overall sound of a system.

From the time I first heard tube amplifiers, I questioned just how special they were and just how much they affected the sound of a system. After much study, the theory of second-order harmonic distortion in single-ended triode or “SET” tube amplifiers makes perfect sense to me. Though after hearing several SET amps, I’m still not convinced that they have a dramatic effect on the sound. Outside of that, I have now owned both push-pull and single-ended pentode tube amplifiers. They sound awesome but I honestly can’t say I think they sound all that different from my solid state amplifiers.

7. I don’t believe break-in time (for speakers and phono cartridges) makes a “significant” difference in the overall sound of a system.

Not much else to say about this one other than I think it’s in people’s heads. Even if it were measurable I don’t think it’s meaningful.

8. I don’t hear a “significant” difference between CD quality and high-resolution digital audio.

In my early 20s I went to a special preview of the first high-resolution Pro Tools recording system, which recorded at both 96 kHz and 192 kHz. When they compared it to 44.1 kHz, the CD standard, I honestly didn’t hear any difference. Finding a study that compared 44.1 and 96 kHz sample rates later on further cemented my feelings on the matter. Additionally, for a long time I recorded 24-bit files merely on the principle that the benefits are exponential when compared to 16-bit. But after watching some convincing YouTube videos regarding the differences between bit rates, I started using 16 bits for recording and haven’t looked back.

9. All other things considered equal, I have never believed I could detect the difference between a vinyl record made with or without a digital transfer step.

When the news about the Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs scandal came out, I privately felt a sense of satisfaction. Finally there was solid evidence that audiophiles were full of it. More broadly, it called into question everything audiophiles have claimed they can hear that I never could. It also served as evidence that “good” digital audio is a virtually perfect linear medium, something recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder touted in the early 1980s during digital’s rise to prominence. This is a great segue into my next and final point…

10. Either I don’t hear a lot of things audiophiles (claim to) hear or I find those nuances “insignificant”. As a result, I often find myself questioning whether audiophiles would be able to prove they can hear those things in a blind test.

Lots of audiophiles don’t believe in blind tests, which are intended to give them an opportunity to prove they can hear questionable differences in formats, equipment, etc. Needless to say, one might be suspicious that audiophiles generally dislike the idea of blind tests precisely due to fearing that they wouldn’t pass the test! I understand that hearing is ultimately a process that involves the brain, which brings with it to the listening experience all kinds of prejudices and information that exist independent of the movements in the air creating the sounds we hear. The simplest example of this kind of bias affecting our judgment of a listening event would be an audiophile thinking a more expensive piece of equipment sounds better, when in reality their perception might be biased as a result of knowing which equipment costs more prior to listening. Perception is not strictly based on physics, and I just wish more audiophiles were willing to acknowledge this.

Perhaps coincidentally, I identify as a record collector. But not everyone who owns lots of records does the same. In episode 42 of my podcast, Record Collector Confessions, a listener named DJ Carlos revealed that while he owns thousands of records, he does not think of himself as a “record collector”. This is because he does not think much about condition or pressing types.

In consideration of all this, it makes sense to me that there is regular disagreement regarding what or who lies within the scope of a definition at the very fringes of that definition. (This could easily veer into philosophical territory but I will refrain from that kind of deep dive.) Perhaps Carlos is on the fringes of the definition of record collector and I in turn am on the fringes of the definition of audiophile.

I think audiophiles have a quite complicated approach to the experience of listening to music, and by contrast I believe my approach is too simplistic to be classified in the same way. I recently realized that I prefer to call myself an “audio enthusiast” instead. It is the phrase I am most comfortable with, and I hope folks in the audiophile community would respect my feelings on the matter. Living in harmony with people who are not like me in every way is an important part of my core values, and I have every intention of keeping my many friendships with the audiophiles in my life despite our differences.