Why Don't More People Love Audio?

Much of the above thread emphasizes a people are lazy-stupid-inbred-indifferent line of reasoning. While convenient to make, this argument is really a cop-out and probably misses the underlying causes for the growing lack of interest in high-end audio.

Consider that the number of consumers purchasing high-end gear has consistently declined, and by marked amounts, since the mid-90's. Are we to believe that there has been a dramatic acceleration in laziness, stupidity, indifference, and inbreeding in so short a span of time? If not, then something else must account for the rejection of the high-end by so many people. I can only give my experience and would not be so bold as to proffer that it is typical of everyone or even most.

My first brush with the high-end came in 1979 when I heard a reference rig consisting of KEF 105's, Crown reference amplification, and a Linn analog front end. The experience was magical, but the $8K-$10K price tag was well beyond my means at the time. I settled a few years later for Hafler amplification, an ADCOM pre, Maggies, and an early generation CD player.

Recently, I decided to completely replace the entire system and was delighted that I now had sufficient means to purchase a high-end setup. After extensive research and many trips to area audio salons, I am disappointed to say the least. First, the sound of the modern reference rigs is not fundamentally better than what I heard in 1979, period! But the price tag is now in the $100K+ range. Moreover, if anything has changed, it is not a marked improvement in the quality of the high-end, but rather the narrowing of the gap between the mid-fi/near-high-end and the "true high-end."

So you tell me, when I can buy a very respectable 2-channel rig for $6K or so, buy an Audi S8, spend two weeks cruising the Greek isles, and purchase $20K worth of art --- OR buy a $100K stereo system, which should I do? This is really a no-brainer.

Simply put, the high-end audio industry has failed miserably in innovating and developing new products that are substantially better in any significant sense. The value per dollar quotient has never looked poorer, and people are not so stupid that they are unaware of this.

Count me as another defector.

P.S. Would the last one out please remember to turn out the lights?

Wehamilton, interesting post and your analysis of our popular culture is spot-on. But to varying degrees, hasn't the popular culture of any era been mired in the banal? Is ours at the extreme in this regard, and if so, by what margin?

I can agree with the persepective that if tastes in our culture were more refined and discerning, then there would logically be a greater number of people interested in "audio as art." Remember, however, that the demand side is only part of the equation, and many would argue that it has a lesser influence than supply side effects. So in fairness, let's consider the supply side of this situation.

I have argued here, and in other threads, that the rate of significant innovation in high-end audio/music reproduction has been so glacially slow that relative to other consumer goods, high-end audio now offers extremely poor value for the consumer dollar. Relatively speaking, there has been significantly more innovation in the A/V, home-theater oriented segment of the market and this is where consumers have flocked with the dollars that they are willing to expend for this type of product. From a value-added perspective, their behavior is only "rational," whatever that means.

Understand that their choice doesn't reflect my values and I'm not arguing this from a HT enthusiast's point of view, I don't even have one and I too think that they're silly. But why is it so easy to demonize individual consumers, yet not look critically at the behavior of the firms that make up the high-end audio industry?

Uh-oh, I see a chicken versus the egg argument starting. Nonetheless, I don't think that demand for HT caused the innovation in that segment of the market, but the other way around. People saw and heard the new boom and sizzle setups and said "eh-eh, eh-eh, eh-eh, that rocks!" (Sorry for the gratuitous Beavis and Butthead reference).

I remember reading an interview with Bob Stemple, then CEO of General Motors, in the late 1980's. He said problem was stupid Japanese consumers wouldn't buy GM vehicles because the steering wheel was on the wrong side, and poor GM couldn't put them in the right place because of the low volume. Apparently the braintrust at GM didn't/still doesn't understand the difference between cause and effect. The problem is that GM made cars that didn't meet Japanese consumers' needs (steering wheel in correct place), thus they would never/never will achieve any volume in Japan. What a vicious cycle.

But isn't this what we face in the high-end? Can't innovate because there isn't enough demand/market is too narrow. Or is demand low (and falling) precisely because the manufacturers don't innovate? And if they did, wouldn't people say "eh-eh, eh-eh, eh-eh, that sounds cool ... gotta have one"?

Meta, the reason that people don't ask where they can get one is because they are being polite. After you tell them how much you paid, most of them are thinking that you are absolutely bonkers.

Also, Levinson is one of the few who is at least taking a stab at "thinking outside the box." In addition to Red Rose, Lexus now has Levinson audio systems in them. I haven't heard one, but maybe he'll be able to cross-sell home gear to Lexus owners; it will at least elevate awareness of the brand name. Like you, I'm not certain which way it will go, but at least they are trying something different.

As has been noted by many before, this is in marked contrast to the high-end establishment that superstitiously demonizes and avoids anything new or different (digital, HT, etc.).