Why Don't More People Love Audio?

The original question was why don't people who buy expensive things also buy expensive audio gear, not why are those people not audiophiles. I think the fact that they're not audiophiles or music lovers (or both) is adequately explained by the amount of time these pursuits take. Just like any hobby well done, it's time consuming and most people with a fair amount of money don't have time for too many well done hobbies.

I think the reason these people don't buy high-end / expensive audio systems is that the main impetus for owning other high-end things without being avidly into the hobby is status, and there isn't much status to be had by owning a high-end audio system. How many non-audiophiles have you ever really impressed with your system? Not just, "Wow, that sounds great" but a reaction that shows you really got their interest for even, say, 15 minutes. I think this is one of the reasons HT is so much more popular - it is easy to truly grab somebody's attention with even a halfway decent HT setup, even if they're not into it themselves. Super Bowl at my house on the new big screen and surround sound! A HT setup does have a fair amount of status associated with it, a high-end audio system just doesn't.

I agree that exposure would have a positive effect on participation in enjoying high-end audio, but I think the estimate that at least 1/2 would convert upon hearing a very well set-up system is much too high, especially if your definition of "audiophile" is at all demanding. Certainly far fewer than 1/2 of the people that audition my system convert (or even sit through very many songs) - in fact the only person I've ever had get real interested was somebody who's already on the path. Maybe my system doesn't meet the criteria of exposure being discussed here, but I'd bet that it does, but in any case it's a pretty common theme that non-audiophiles who hear a nice system, even when they acknowledge awesome sound, don't show much interest in actually owning one.

That said, I've always agreed that exposure would do a lot to promote the higher-end industry. Put decent systems into CD stores with a sign saying "Displayed by .....". Repetitive exposure would quite possibly work a lot better than an individual session.

I'm not sure I understand your point, but I think I'm in the clear to buy whatever high-end gear I want since I have no talent for composing or performing music myself, so the purchase of an expensive luxury product of this ilk will not undermine any natural talent of mine, nor rob the world of any inherent musical genius. This is quite a relief, actually, as I've been eyeing the new Sony DVP-S9000ES pretty closely.......

I don't think the emphasis is so much on people being lazy or ignorant as it is on people not "caring" about better sound - it's (inexplicably to some of us) unimportant to them. This isn't the result of rapidly increasing laziness on the part of the population but, IMO, the combination of a rapidly increasing amount of stimuli in the world (which certainly has occurred over the past few decades) coupled with technological advancements that do put pretty good sound at such an affordable level that many don't think twice about ever spending more, and the stuff rarely breaks.

Trying to advance the sound quality of a system takes both time and money (basically synonymous for any adult), and there's only so much to go around and, as stated earlier, rapidly increasing amounts of things vying for both time and money. Depending on how one defines "high-end", it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to get most people to even fathom the concepts as important, much less act on them. Of all the people I know, there is only one who doesn't scratch their head if you talk about spending more than a few hundred bucks on any component. If somebody asked me for advice in purchasing a system, I'd be doing well to get them to appreciate what you can get for, say, $2K and, if they bought it, they'd probably think they'd blown their lifetime wad for equipment and, since it would never break, they'd never look to improve it. It would also sound markedly better than anything they'd ever owned before, better than anything they ever hear at a friends house, and there'll be a million other things banging at their door for their money and time.

I don't know how many people have to be "converted" to restore the high-end to "healthy", but I don't see it happening with what appears to currently be defined as high-end.

Isn't the basic question how the Hi-end defines itself, at least with respect to how wide a band of interest they can shoot for? There seems to be a pretty constant pressure from "the high-end" to define big chunks of stuff out of the picture - popular music, CDs, digital in general, interest in HT - all these things are kept at a distance, at least from high-end and/or audiophiles in the strictest sense which, by definition then, precludes the possibility that there will be a wide band interest.

The supply and demand question regarding A/V gear innovation is probably answered by "both" - people want it because it was created and marketed very effectively. But even here, the audio high-end goes to great lengths to distance themselves from this development. Why is the pursuit of movie replay at a high level of excellence any less worthwhile than the same pursuit of music replay? Sure, there's lots of garbage movies made every year, just like there's lots of garbage music made every year. But good and great movies (of which there are many) are greatly enhanced by playback on a good system, and the better the system, the better the experience, to the point that you can definitely create a better experience at home than you can get at all but the most modern cinemas. Certainly, what you can get for HT has advanced several magnitudes more in the past 15 years than home audio in the same time frame.

If what we mean when we wonder why more people don't love audio is why aren't more people spending money on dedicated equipment for audio reproduction and dedicated listening, I think we're limiting the question the same way the high-end limits how wide its own reach is.

Docwarnock, I agree - HT as a phenomena exists because of the classic marketing of creating a solution to a problem that didn't necessarily exist. Show people something cool, and sell them on how there life would be better if they owned one, and they'll want one / buy one. It's all been done very successfully.

To give you my answer to your question in your final paragraph, I think the lack of innovation in the high-end is based on a failure by the high-end in general to recreate (redefine) itself. Read any book on successful companies in today's economy, and they'll stress the need to be constantly recreating yourself, constantly making obsolete old concepts / products and creating the new. Recognize the next "wave", that time when things have undoubtedly and irrevocably changed and that you need to change or die (or, in this case, become extremely niche). The changes are there, and have been occurring for at least a decade, in how home electronics are used for entertainment, how music and movies are "consumed", but the high-end still has many of the same mantras and, in general, rejects most of the new.

Mind you, I have no problem with the high-end staying true to the course - I just am not surprised that fewer people are signing on, and that high-end manufacturers are experiencing lack of growth or worse. I think you're exactly right - innovate in a way that gets people to say "Whoa!!!! Cool!" and they'd decide they had to have one. Better yet, put it on display where a large number of people might actually see it / hear it, and you might really attract people (Out of every 100 people I know, I'd venture that fewer than five have even been in a high-end audio store). In other words, put quality audio sound in products that more people might experience and desire, and there's a great likelihood that people would come to appreciate it more.

I was going to say 1 in a 1000 but thought it might sound overly emphatic, despite the fact that it seems about right. It's probably slightly higher than that if you include the people I've drug in to one.

I'm not suggesting a need to pander, and certainly not suggesting a desire to court the LCD. What I'm suggesting is that to get more people to love quality audio reproduction is going to take a different approach than that which is currently offered by those who love it the most. I think a vast number of people, plopped down in front of an excellent system, can hear and, at least intellectually, appreciate the quality of the sound reproduction. But the time and $$ required to acquire it for themselves, and the education that leads to a set of reasoning that would justify such a purchase in their mind are all obstacles. Just take time for instance - very few people have the patience to sit and listen to even a couple of songs if that's all they're doing. I'm speaking from the experience of showing off my system to friends - no later than 1/2 way through the second song, they're talking, standing up, moving around.

So, if the question of "Why don't more people love audio" is meant to mean, "Why don't more people want good-quality, audio reproduction to pursue as a goal in and of itself, along with listening as a pursuit of it's own", then I think the answers about short attention span, changing culture, etc. work pretty well. But if the question is actually intended to say, "Why are people satisfied with Bose when they could have so much better for the same price or just a reasonable amount more," then I think it's because the obstacles of places to experience it and educate oneself, the lack of high-end innovation to accomodate this market segments "needs" (ie, not having the right products), and the distance the current high-end holds itself from this potential market are the reasons.

Clearly there must be many in this category - during a recent visit to the one local audio shop worth visiting, they told me they had pre-sold about 10 of the upcoming Krell DVD players at $9K retail. They reiterated several times that they can't the new HTS2 fast enough to meet demand. They told me they were negotiating to sell their floor model Dynaudio Evidence's ($85K/pair) to a guy who is in the process of building a new listening room that measures 45x70 feet! Then he pointed out that this same guy was lending, since the room isn't ready yet, his Krell KPS-25sc and his $25K/pair speaker cables to the shop. He went on to say that the guy was thinking about doing HT by adding another pair of Evidences. Somewhere in that sequence I'm thinking, "this has nothing to do with loving music and everything to do with status"

My overriding impression of going into almost every high-end shop in my area is that it's this category that keeps them going, and several of them are doing VERY well. Anecdotally, it seems that the shops that are small and built a business by growing an evolving client base are getting hammered by the internet, etc., but that the places that move a lot of boxes to people who want something good and modern without the hassle of learning about high-end audio (or video for that matter) are doing very well. -Kirk

I think that sometimes people are also intimidated by the good systems they hear / see. They recognize the quality of what they're listening to, but believe that to get much better sound that the boom box they have, they're going to fall prey to spending thousands more than they want to. I find myself constantly reassuring my friends who are kind of interested that they don't have to spend what I spent or become as fascinated by it as I have to get much better sound. I was out looking at big-screen TVs with one such friend and went into the speaker demo room. They had selectable CDs and speakers to choose from, so I put on Diana Krall's latest over some inexpensive speakers - it still blew him away, but it seemed achievable so I think it's more likely to stick. We moved down a couple rooms (up in price) and played the same song and he heard an even (much) better rendition, so I think he began to see that you don't have to spend a fortune, but that the more you spend, the better it gets. The key is to demonstrate that you can get a lot better sound for an amount of money that pales in comparison to what people spend on many other things, and that it can be simpler than the huge stacks many of us have built.

I find it amazing, too, how many people don't find music to be an important component in their life. Many were fanatics when they were young and have lost all zeal - I don't understand why. -Kirk

Start with a more basic question - why don't more people love music? It's certainly true, in my experience, that I find a lot more people willing to carry on a conversation about music than audio gear, and I'm sure there is a majority of people, perhaps even a vast majority, who value music to a point that if you tried to take it away from them, they'd yell.

Now, put those people in front of audio enthusiasts and watch what happens. Like somebody with a nagging spouse, any love they start out with gets chipped away at rather than reinforced - "Rap isn't music", "There hasn't been any good music made since I was 18", "Melody is more important than rhythm", "mp3's sound crappy". And on and on. Maybe it's just me, but I'm into music and high-end audio, but exposing myself to others of the audio mindset, these are the messages that just keep being emphasized. It's basically all detriment, no reinforcement.

Assuming that somebody starts with a love of music before "discovering" audio, then they move into figuring out what to buy. And they get more negative feedback - "CD sound is terrible", "Why would you want gear that emphasizes aesthetics", "You have to spend X thousands to get good sound", "Why aren't you sitting still listening instead of talking or paying attention to something else".

The high-end community does nothing but denigrate somebody who is less into audio or music than they are. Spend only low 4-figures and you're buying "mid-fi". Sheesh. I doubt, seriously, that this is significantly different from other hobbies - I can imagine a thread somewhere called "Why don't more people love performance bikes?", coupled with comments about how we tell our potential biking-loving friends that you really don't need to spend more than $3K to get a decent bike.

I have taken to starting as many conversations as I can about music, and I never start a conversation about audio gear. It's amazing to me where I find people who genuinely are into music - I wouldn't even begin to believe I could guess from anything other than asking them, as the patterns are undiscernible. But I find LOTS of people who really enjoy music and want to share their thoughts, turn me onto music, be turned onto music, etc. The only time I talk about audio gear is when somebody suggests that they're thinking of buying something - I offer that I know a lot about gear, and could offer advice on getting the most for their money.

If Audio == high-end in the sense that audiophiles tend to define it, then I think the answer to the original question is because it's so niche that it will never appeal to a wide audience. If Audio means music and music playback systems, then I'd contend that tons of people love audio, they just love it for different reasons than "pure" audiophiles.

Enjoyed your post, Leedistad, but I don't agree with your point about asking this question being akin to asking why more people aren't into model trains. Playing back / listening to music is an almost universal experience, and the fact that such a vast percentage of the people who experience this never move beyond the cheap stereo / boombox / iPod playback approach is a bit bewildering to me.

I think this post has lived so long because you can look at the question so many different ways, but one version, and the one I'm using, is to question why, when almost every other pursuit (you mention several) has luxury versions that people pursue. So, I'm not wondering why more people don't pursue $10K preamps and the like, but a $1K-2K system built around Creek gear, or the Arcam Solo, or any of a number of other nice, lower-cost manufacturers, should have more market penetration than it does.

To put it another way, off the top of my head, I could name several acquaintances who are "into" wine, several who are into bikes, motorcycles, power boats, some who are into art, some who are into watches, many many who have invested in expensive video, and probably even a couple who are into model trains. But I almost fall off my chair when I come across somebody who has invested past the bare minimum on audio playback.

As you say, different strokes, but I still find it odd that so many people listen to music, but the acquisition of decent playback gear is just absent from most peoples' world.

That's a good point - many of the other pursuits carry the notion that the thing being purchased will appreciate in value. I think we're all subject to justifying to ourselves our purchases, and the notion that one is buying something that will appreciate in value reinforces the rightness of said purchase.

For myself, my rationalization is along the lines of that I use audio gear daily, extensively, and year-round. You either drink a bottle of wine and then it's gone, or you store it indefinitely - you don't use it over and over. In any case, it's funny how we can all come up with things to reinforce our own desired behavior.