The Cambridge English dictionary defines "audiophile" as: "a person who is very interested in and enthusiastic about equipment for playing recorded sound, and its quality". In order to get there, I think one first starts at becoming a lover of music.
I'm not the kind of audiophile that is constantly tweaking his sound system or frequently "updating" in order to attempt to make improvements in sound fidelity. For example: I've only had 2 turntables (maybe half a dozen cartridges), 3 amplifiers (i.e. 2 receivers and my present integrated amplifier), 2 CD players and 4 different sets of speakers for my two-channel system in the last 53 years. To be honest, I probably would have made more updates or bought more stuff if I'd had more disposable income along the way. However, there is something to be said for being content in one's time and space. Do you really need a 50-thousand-dollar sound system in a 12' X 15' college dorm room? Would that sound "better" than a quality 5-thousand-dollar system in the same room? Maybe louder but better?
I have a couple audiophile friends who are constantly asking, sometimes prodding, me to make "updates" or "improvement" in my sound system. They don't seem to understand or comprehend when I respond that my system is about optimum for the space or sound room (i.e. 14" X 23" living room) I have now. Could I make substantive, palpable improvements in sound fidelity? Sure! I could spend more than the sum total of all the major components I have now on a new set of speakers and/or a new amplification source. However, would this render a substantive, significant, palpable "improvement" in sound fidelity? The sound would be different, to be sure, but "better"? Would the cost be justifiable? Well, this would be in the ear and budget of the beholder, of course. At this point in my audiophile journey, as far as I'm concerned, the next best "update" or "improvement" I could make would be to buy or build another home with a dedicated sound room. At that point, I could buy more toys.
