The difference between an Audiophile and a Stereophile?


While this question may just be Phylostrabation, I think it does raise a question that many are ambigous about.  

I think an Audiophile is about the sound, the mastering of the recording, the frequency seperation of instriments and clearity of the sound.  The SN ratio, the EQ of the room, the type of music is not the topic of discussion.  A given brand may be admired, and drooled over, but only because the means justifies the end, the sound.

On the other ear, a Stereophile, is likely stimulated by the sound, but possibly more by the jewelry of the equipment.  The philostrabation for a Stereophile is the discussion about the toys, the gear, the looks of the system, possible brand names, the absolute beauty of the rack!  Both types enjoy a good looking rack! but how much will they pay for a given toy, or visual thrill? Can one justify the expense? Does anyone even need to justfy the expense, maybe to their spouse, but otherwise? 

One way we can adress this question is to ask does the blue light of a McIntosh excite you? How about the unity of the components being stacked in a manner that is visually amazing?  The size of a floor speaker? The fame of a name? Don't get me wrong, I will bragg, and enjoy names, I talked to Bob Carver on the phone once. He fixed up his original CD player I sent him for me with new chips so it would track better. That is like an audience with The Pope to some.  As well, I have met and discussed a few things with Doug Dale at Coda and such. 

I first fell in love with Hi Fi in late 70's because of the feel of a smooth volume knob turning up "Hey 19",  But I digress.

To me the sound of Miles Davis doing Bitches Brew song "Miles runs the Vodo" with John Mcglaughin Herbie Hancock, and others is more than amazing, it is life it's self.  Providing the song is flying out of my Legacy Focus 20/20 speakers powered by the Coda 11.5  Class A amp, or better.  While  I'm not lost on the Dark Side of the Moon, but will suggest Steely Dan is quite undeniable.  I will end with, "Kashmir" and just ask, what the hell is better than sound itself?   

As Ravi Shankar said," Nada Brahma".  

gregchick0

I doubt anyone here is neither.  I think both are present in most, but a few are lost to just one side.  I don't claim either is better, nor do I deny having both.  Just asking the question to dilute the digital blindness and the emotional excess of the jewelry worshiper.  Like an amp balance knob, center is good in most rooms. 

It's one point that many "Files" here haven't asked themselves and denial is useless, admit it, sexy turning knobs and silky woven cables are really cool.  But the final thing is the delivery of the music as clear as the mic's captured it.   

Many years ago, I walked into The Record Collector in LA (before he moved locations). At the time, I was still buying classical LPs. He had some big ol' speakers from the original "golden age"- like EV Patricians or big Bozaks. One was in one area of the store and through an archway to another part of the store was another. I said, somewhat jokingly, "you know your stereo image in compromised." The owner (I think his name was Sandy?) said "bah, stereo. It's a gimmick."

In the end Stereo has 2 sides.   I like "Bigtwin's" comment.  As for Stereo being a gimmick, the gimmick is likely in the mind of the beholder. 

I can be a sucker for both a good song, and a $75,000. system.

Interesting posts.