I propose that an audiophile must have more than a superficial knowledge about what he listens to and must technically understand what he is listening to. He knows why things work and what his end goal is and often makes his own components to achieve this. He knows how to use design software to make speakers that you can’t buy and analyze the room they are in and set up the amplification with digital crossovers and DSP. He can take a plain jane system and tweak it and balance it to best suit the room it is in. He can make it sound far better than the guy who constantly buys new components based on his superficial knowledge who does not understand why what he keeps buying in vain never quite gets there.
That guy’s the audio-equivalent of Ken Miles (recently portrayed in Mr. Mangold’s ’Le Mans ’66’). I actually know a guy like that, a friend of mine, and while most of us may think we can wring out a good deal of potential from our stereo set-ups, when audio über-geek Mr. Miles turns up and works his magic, one’s humbled.
I can certainly vouch for active configuration and its merits, although many may think what defines ’active’ is merely represented via products with build-in amps and DSP’s, and not that filtration prior to amplification on signal level offers the choice of separates as well. Add to that high sensitivity drivers and horns and you’re really unpopular with any mention of audiophile aspirations. Indeed, why not expel any such need for entitlement and go as we please, when what’s audiophile typicality veers from our own goals?
Btw, it's a classic trait seeing those outspoken about defining more strictly the terms of being an audiophile to conveniently fall within that classification themselves. Vanity, vanity..