I realize that this thread has a "tongue in cheek" flavor to it, and I chuckled at several of the responses. Since I became active on this forum about 18 months ago, I've actually spent a good deal of time thinking about where our hobby is headed. Even some of the really famous names in the business like Mark Levinson are concerned that the hobby is becoming too cost-oriented.
Earlier today, I made a final post to a lengthy thread that got started last weekend, and I thought I'd share my post. I'm not trying to rain on the parade here, but Ryllau's topic is timely and relevant given some of the recent posts on this forum. For what it's worth, here is a portion of the post I made this morning:
"To carry this thread just a bit further, my current opinion about our hobby is that we need to seriously evaluate our values and what is important to us as a community of hobbyists. For many years, from the 1950's through the 1970's, audio was about the equipment in service to the music, although there was certainly a strong element of interest in the "system qua non". Over the past 10-15 years, there has been a clear trend toward megabuck audio systems, many of which have been acquired by techno-wealthy people. Somehow, the challenge and satisfaction of building a system, finding the right pieces that work well together in one's own listening room, has become secondary to simply buying equipment that is, in my opinion, insanely expensive. Years ago, I was an avid Porsche owner (still love 'em, but can't afford them anymore). The serious enthusiasts did a lot of their own mechanical work, learned to drive their cars well, competed in club events, etc. As the cars become more expensive and turned into status symbols for the affluent, some of the long-time owners observed that anyone with enough money could buy a Porsche, but that didn't mean that you could drive it well. Before the suspension and handling improvements of the past 15 years, Porsches were a true driver's car that could be notoriously hard to drive well at high speeds, due to the rear-mounted engine. Today, what seems important to lots of Porsche owners is to be seen in one, not being able to drive one well. That's not the best analogy, but it captures my concern about the direction I see high-end audio going."
I believe that the extraordinary performance of the stock market during the 1990's caused a major change in many people's perceptions of what constitutes wealth. A recent New York Times article had an extensive discussion of wealth, and noted the results of a survey that asked people what level of income one must have to be considered wealthy. When the first survey was conducted in the late 1980's, the average annual income that was regarded as making someone "wealthy" was just over $1 million. The survey done last year said that the new level of annual income required to qualify as "wealthy" was $3.3 million.
Some of the "paradigm shift" about wealth has, IMO, invaded high-end audio. There's certainly nothing wrong about having an expensive system, but it would be a shame for younger people who are joining the hobby to feel that their "status" as audiophiles is tied to the cost of their system. Men (much more than women) seem to have an inherent need to compete -- as warriors, as athletes, as intellects, etc., and I have a philosophical problem about turning audiophilia into a competition.
I think it's really important for our hobby to attract new participants. Were it not for the advent of home theater, this hobby would be nearly dead at this point. I'd like to re-frame the discussion and instead ask "how do you judge value in an audio system"? In finding an answer to that question, we may be able to offer some real assistance to the "newbies" that would like to develop good audio systems.
Earlier today, I made a final post to a lengthy thread that got started last weekend, and I thought I'd share my post. I'm not trying to rain on the parade here, but Ryllau's topic is timely and relevant given some of the recent posts on this forum. For what it's worth, here is a portion of the post I made this morning:
"To carry this thread just a bit further, my current opinion about our hobby is that we need to seriously evaluate our values and what is important to us as a community of hobbyists. For many years, from the 1950's through the 1970's, audio was about the equipment in service to the music, although there was certainly a strong element of interest in the "system qua non". Over the past 10-15 years, there has been a clear trend toward megabuck audio systems, many of which have been acquired by techno-wealthy people. Somehow, the challenge and satisfaction of building a system, finding the right pieces that work well together in one's own listening room, has become secondary to simply buying equipment that is, in my opinion, insanely expensive. Years ago, I was an avid Porsche owner (still love 'em, but can't afford them anymore). The serious enthusiasts did a lot of their own mechanical work, learned to drive their cars well, competed in club events, etc. As the cars become more expensive and turned into status symbols for the affluent, some of the long-time owners observed that anyone with enough money could buy a Porsche, but that didn't mean that you could drive it well. Before the suspension and handling improvements of the past 15 years, Porsches were a true driver's car that could be notoriously hard to drive well at high speeds, due to the rear-mounted engine. Today, what seems important to lots of Porsche owners is to be seen in one, not being able to drive one well. That's not the best analogy, but it captures my concern about the direction I see high-end audio going."
I believe that the extraordinary performance of the stock market during the 1990's caused a major change in many people's perceptions of what constitutes wealth. A recent New York Times article had an extensive discussion of wealth, and noted the results of a survey that asked people what level of income one must have to be considered wealthy. When the first survey was conducted in the late 1980's, the average annual income that was regarded as making someone "wealthy" was just over $1 million. The survey done last year said that the new level of annual income required to qualify as "wealthy" was $3.3 million.
Some of the "paradigm shift" about wealth has, IMO, invaded high-end audio. There's certainly nothing wrong about having an expensive system, but it would be a shame for younger people who are joining the hobby to feel that their "status" as audiophiles is tied to the cost of their system. Men (much more than women) seem to have an inherent need to compete -- as warriors, as athletes, as intellects, etc., and I have a philosophical problem about turning audiophilia into a competition.
I think it's really important for our hobby to attract new participants. Were it not for the advent of home theater, this hobby would be nearly dead at this point. I'd like to re-frame the discussion and instead ask "how do you judge value in an audio system"? In finding an answer to that question, we may be able to offer some real assistance to the "newbies" that would like to develop good audio systems.