why is there such a concern with the thoughts and opinions of other people ? if you have an interest in something and someone else doesn't, why obsess about it ? |
let me clarify my position regarding audio equipment as a status symbol.
i think that some buy them to "keep up with the jones'"--their fellow wealthy friends and acquantainces.
many do not listen to their audio systems and have no interest in listening to them.
rather the equipment represents a sizable expenditure comparable to the expenditure of others who may buy boats , expensive cars, or , art.
such individuals are not audiophiles and music may not be of interest to them as well. |
if it is like the weather, then discussing it won't change anything. in that case, be concerned, but you can't change what you can't change.
if you think something will change, what will change and how will it change ?
no one can be coerced into appreciating something if it is not important to that person. audio is important to a minority of minorities. |
here is a simple answer:
in order to enjoy the sound of your favorite music, you only need a rudimentary personal audio system.
there is no need to acquire components to enjoy one's music.
thus, if you can listen to music on a "boom box" and enjoy it, why consider the time, money and emotion to get involved with audio equipment ? |
many of the comments i have read reveal an alitist and condescending attitude. what happened to "live and let live" ? or "judge not lest ye be judged" ?
lead a horse to water. if the horse doesn't want to drink, leave the horse alone.
it is not a matter of intelligence or discernment, but rather a matter of priorities. one should not be critical of the way in which others experience recorded music.
sometimes audiophiles set an example of behavior that is offensive. let's look in the moirror before judging others. |
if enjoyment of music is the basis for our hobby, a modest stereo system, costing under $1000 is sufficient.
i believe many feel that a $200 personal stereo can provide all the "sound" that a person needs to enjoy music. |
hi cruz123:
you make a good point. if most people can enjoy music in the car or by listening to a boom box, why spend more ?
enjoyment of music is not dependent upon sound quality.
the purpose of trying to attain excellence of reproduction is to appreciate the beauty of the human voice and the timbre of instruments.
thus there is a dichotomy--sound quality and music appreciation. sound quality is not a necessary condition for enjoying music.
i see three types of audiophiles, gear fanatics, compulsive chasers of accuracy and aesthetic appreciators of the sound of instruments. |
hi kthomas:
you make some good points. let me add one.
certain expensive consumer goods are accepted as status symbols. cars, boats, jewelery, watches, paintings and antiques are some examples. while expensive audio gear has some appeal to wealthy persons, it does not compete with some of the aforementioned items. i guess, there is a popularity or collectible value associated with works of art, wine, watches and cars. audio equipment is a depreciating asset in comparison to others which increase in value.
to summarize, audio equipment is not a collectible item and the enjoyment of music can be attained from listening to $300 personal stereos. where is the incentive to spend more than $300, for most people ? by the way, i wouldn't lose sleep over the general lack of interest in the hobby.
there is a certain satisfaction associated with being a contrarian, as far as taste is concerned. |
there is a disnction between music and sound. music is everywhere, varying in sound quality. enjoying music does not require an expensive stereo system. many forget that people enjoyed music via the most basic , i.e., low fidelity media, in the past and perhaps in the present.
you will not convince them that you enjoy your music because you have an expensive stereo. the same people may not enjoy their music more on your expesnive stereo system, although they may admit that your stereo system sounds better than their "personal stereo" purchased for say, 200 at best buy or circuit city.
in order to engender audiophilia, one must losee all elitist attitudes that one can't enjoy music on a poor sounding stereo system. do not be supercilious when relating to people who use i pods or walkman devices.
exposure is the best that one can do. lead the horse to water. if the horse wants to pursue the hobby, encourage the horse but don't criticize.
above all, realize the distinction between enjoying musical content and the "sound" of the music. they are separate issues for most people. |
one can enjoy music without being an audiophile or having an interest in equipment.
a larger percentage of the population enjoy music than the the pursuit of "audio" as a hobby.
the question is why?
probably something obvious like other priorities and interests are more compelling.
the idiosyncracies of invidual preferences are sometimes beyond explanation . |
what about all the scientists with their phds and doctors who have no interest in art? they may be busy or have other interest. i think it's a bit harsh to cast aspersions.
regarding what audio means, i consider it the pursuit of equipment for the purpose of creating what one considers sonic excellenece.
such an endeavor may motivate a very small sample of the population.
as i have said, it is a matter of priorities. music may not be as important as some other pursuit.
perhaps there are many who don't ascribe to collecting, wanting to live a simpler existence, not wanting to be tied to things, or having no interest in owning material goods.
perhaps younger people are less materialistic , e.g., conspicuous consumption, than people over 40. |
high end audio is an example of conspicuous consumption. i have heard of individuals who assemble expensive components to impress their contemporaries, without actually listening to them.
such a "group" is probably very small, in comparison to those who listen to music.
however, if many people view audio not as a vehicle for the enjoyment of music but as an indication that they possess material wealth it would serve as another explanation as to why the hobby is not popoular. |
there are many things competing for our attention and interest. we are bombarded every day by all kinds of stimuli.
the priority of listening to music characterized by "sonic excellence" , probably is not cogent for most people, who prefer to listen to music in the background mode.
mpst people have no interest in listening to music as an exclusive activity.
the computer and the tv set are more compelling . |
it's a matter of priorities.
there are so many things competing for our attention that audio assumes less importance than it did years ago. |
why is there seemingly so much concern regarding a person's attitude about a hobby ?
such a concern seems like a trivial pursuit to me. |
i think some people are taking the subject "audio" to seriously. it is just a hobby, competing with many other hobbies.
hopefully we define ourselves by our character not by our hobbies.
chill out guys. it's no big deal whether people are or are not audiophiles, or like or do not like music.
the fact that there have been been three hundred + posts is puzzling to me, as my philosophy in life is that of the golden mean. |
you can love music but employ a medium that is very inexpensive, not "audiophile" quality" and still derive immense pleasure from listening.
there was a study in stereophile years ago that found that satisfaction from listening to music had a low correlation with the quality of sound.
i believe that the above-mentioned study is one explanation for the paucity of audiophiles.
by the way, the law of the golden mean is also a concept found in philosophical writings. |
hi nsgarch:
i was not alluding to the golden rule. it bears no relevance to my comments. i am well aware of the fibonacci series. i was a math major. |
i think there is a tendency to overcomplicate a simple situation.
people are unique in there chice of hobbbies or activities they prefer. music is just one activity. there are many others.
why single out music as if there is something special or different, from say, reading, going to the theter, or eating out.
certain activities are perhaps more popular than others. it may be economic, it may be a lack of appreciation--think schooling.
consider it like you would another hobby, like tennis or golf.
it really is no more productive to analyze the interest in music as it would be to analyze the interest in golf.
just accept it and move on. |
perhaps people love music and the reproduction of recordings in the home, but don't want to be called an "audiophile"--a term which has negative connotations.
i'm sure that when exposed to quality sound, even a tyro would appreciate the sound of instruments. it's just the notion of being considered an audiophile which may not be attractive to most people. i think the term "audiophile" may be associated with "lunatic", for many people. |
hi stthomas:
being able to hear the difference does not imply one will care, or spend money on audio equipment.
the issue is how important is availing oneself of excellence of sound or other aesthetic endeavors.
let me make an analogy.
suppose one has powers of discrimination when it comes to wine tasting. there is no guarantee that such a person will buy the "better" wine or even drink wine. |
one can analyze the question until the cows come in , but there is an obvious answer.
people have different tastes. some like boats, expensive cars, art objects, etc. . those who are passionate about a particular hobby, may have no interest in another.
time is also a consideration. if someone is involved in other pursuits, there may be no time left for another hobby which is time consuming
think of a persons's available leisure time as a pie. the pie is divided into slices. each slice may represent a desired activity. for some, audio is not a desirable activity because other interests will supersede it.
it's just a matter of priorities. |
it is not surprising that people express a distaste for anything. there is an expression in latin that is very old and expresses such a thought:
de gustibus est non disputandem (i hope i spelled the last word correctly)
there are a lot of people who are iconoclastic when it comes to pop culture.
i certainly think that a love of music is very common among the populace.
i think there is a connotation implied by the question, namely a superciliousness regarding certain genres of music, which may account for a small minority of audiophiles in the world.
it would be interesting to find out , among audiophiles, what percentage does not like popular music.
i suspect that more than 50 percent of audiophiles have an appreciation of classical music. i suspect that this genre is the least popular, and it may explain why there are so few audiophiles. it follows logically that if i am correct, the number of audiophiles may diminish over time, if there is a high correlation berween age and love for classical music. |
more people love music than the configuration of stereo systems to attain quality of sound. its obvious why.
the natural inclination of human beings is laziness. quality is sacrificed for convenience.
moreover, sound quality , for many does not enhance the enjoyment of listening to music.
the message of the music and the emotional content can be communicated using any medium.
the reason is intrinsic to the psychology governing human behavior. |
