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".  


Cryo treated cables create a warm sound?  Now I'm being nasty, somebody stop me. 

@gregchick0   Your comment "The Stereophile may only buy jewelry looking equipment. Yet, the Audiophile is about the sound," again, smacks of elitism.  And I might add it's not an attractive characteristic.  The inference suggests that those of us who appreciate the form as well as the function are somehow not as astute.  Where is the manufacturer of any product that does not consider how the product looks.  And then why shouldn't the consumer appreciate that and admire what has been brought forth?  Being able to see the beauty in something in no way takes away from one's ability to understand and appreciate all other facets.  Let it go.

I hear your message, I am sure others do as well. My question is only that. As Sonny and Cher sang, "And the beat goes on".  

Currently my entire neighborhood is being cryo treated by nature and it does kind of sound better, so I suggest covering cables with snow. A "stereophile" is committed to 2 channel listening, while the opposite is actually a "monophile." An audiophile is somebody with working ears that allow sound to enter the brain. An audiophilliac is into dead music. I hope that clears some if this up. Also, over the last 50 years of so I don’t think I’ve ever bought a piece of audio gear for its looks, as I’ve rejected some good looking things if they sounded unworthy of my attention, so there’s that. Same with musician gear.

Audiophile is one channel short?

What about a quadrophile?  Or, indeed, a quintaphile, the home cinema listener?

Seriously, these terms are incapable of describing a hi-fi hobbyist in alternative terms.  Any such connotation is 'all in the mind'.

This post is unuseful.