Home theatre better matches the "zeitgeist" of the times than high end audio. Previous posters have hit on a lot of the factors defining the current situation, let me put it a different way. For a number of years, going back at least to the mid-90's, society has been in a highly experiential phase. It has even been called the "Experience Economy" in business circles.
With this mindset, everything has to be "extreme" to even get noticed. Realtiy isn't good enough, it needs to be pumped up. From sports to movies to recreational activities it has to be more exagerated, more impactful and more staged than ever before just to get to leave an impression. You can't watch TV w/o loud intrusive sound effects inserted for no reason (You Are the Weakest Link or the NFL on Fox for example). Exagerated visual effects in movies have replaced plot lines and artistic cinematography. Even martial arts films (the original extreme genre) has had trouble being extreme enough. Now you have to fly as you beat the crap out of your opponent, or lacking flight capabilities, just add more blood. Best Picture, Gladiator & Titanic, you see where I'm going with this.
In the music world, you can't have a rock band with just four or five musicians anymore- now they need to be fronted by 8 choreographed dancers putting on a stage show that sometimes also claim to be the "singers." These muscial "acts" have replaced bands. In this environment, nobody even notices Jerry Springer anymore. You could call it the WWF'ing of America. Looked at cynically, you could say it's technology playing to the lowest common denominator across a wide range of activities. Another view might be we've been on a bit of a technology bender with lower prices bringing these gooodies into the realm of the average man.
In this period of exageration the home theatre "experience" with it's countless channels and audio processing and manipulation is giving people more of what they want. They don't want reality- the holy grail that has been fueling the audiophile quest for the last 40 years, they want to be dazzled with an enhanced, or pumped up version of reality. And they can be dazzled for a farily small amount of money (for those that aren't too discerning) or they can invest $50K in a home theatre for those that need to brag "mine is bigger than yours."
What is missing from all this is the appreciation ofthe art of music and the purity of it's reproduction that we audiophiles value. While critically listening to music is certainly experiential, it seems an almost quaint activity in a world that wants to be blown away by sensory overload.
No my friends, we are not living in a era that values or even understands subtlety or nuance of the type that makes art and it's reproduction an audiophile's passion. And until the pendulum starts swinging back the other way, don't be surprised if the totally awesome, extreme and radical audio video experience keeps the purist relegated to second class status.
Dude, did you hear that someone's comin' out with a 20 foot big screen with 10 channel make you puke and your ears bleed fully surround sound gut rumbling digisynthesizerprocessor? Awesome...... |
Limabean, my hat's off to you and your shipmates. Installing an audiophile system onboard a nuke is a 5.0 degree of difficulty- talk about tricky room acoustics! Hell, my hat's off to you guys everyday, anyway just for being there. At least now you have some good tunes to help with the tedium. I'm listening to Miles Davis right now and dedicating it to you and your shipmates. Hey, do you think the Russian submariners can hear your system too? They're probably happy to have some decent music for a change!
Detlof, from senior year in high school to senior year in college I had four completely different stereo systems even though I was a dirt poor student. That should have been a sign to my parents or someone, but it went undiagnosed (psychology wasn't as advanced back then). As a result I continue to suffer with no hope for a cure! Glad to know there are fellow travelers at least. Just think by the time we finally get our systems right our hearing will be shot. I sure hope the old folks home doesn't have a Bose system! Best regards to all. |
We share the "perfectionist" mindset and aren't ever going to be satisfied, that's why this is an equipment driven hobby. It also implies that we aren't afraid of equipment/technology, that we can hear and appreciate the differences in recordings, performances, and equipment and that finally, we place a high enough priority on the above to spend a fair amount of our income pursuing that perfection.
Add in the love for music and that makes us a very small subset of the population. In another thread I said that I'm a tortured soul (aka audiophile) because of the above items. But most people don't even think twice about them, that's what makes us different. Don't believe me? Just tell one of your civilian friends that you spend $1700 on an interconnect or $8,000 on an amp and watch their reaction . It's not that we have more money either, it's just that it's important enough for us to spend what money we have on the unobtainable pursuit of perfection (we chase the audiophile holy grail). Most people will always settle for mediocre, some will only be happy with a little extra, and still fewer will be "tortured souls," also known as audiophiles. |
There's no question the electronics industry is always looking for the next big thing. And when they find it, all the manufacturers seem to move in lock-step to saturate the segment with product as they push their mature product lines to the back burner. And we all know that high end audio equipment has reached the flat part of the curve where the law of diminishing returns starts to limit the size of the next incremental improvement. Still, having said that, the fact remains that audio today delivers a level of performance we only dreamed about 20 years ago. So if all else were equal, it should be enjoying an upsurge of interest due to the high level of performance and value that it now offers. Afterall, greater numbers of us listened to inferior equipment 20 years ago; yet interest in high end declines when in fact, the opposite should be true.
So getting back to the spirit of the original question, what has changed? Well the short answer is "we have." Getting back to my previous post, new products only take-off when there is a convergence of new technology with a receptive public. That receptivity is most dramatic when a product taps into the prevailing mindset of consumers. We all know of the stories of good technologies that failed to find a market because they were out of synch with the mood of market in one way or another. So while the manufacturers can offer a supply side push with an array of new products, they end up pushing on a rope if it isn't striking a resonating chord with the customer.
In the 60's, Marshall McCluhan wrote "The medium is the message." I would update that in 2001 by saying "the technology is the message." Getting back to my post of yesterday, the receptive chord that has been struck with today's consumer is the technology of home theatre delivering the desired heightened experience. The experience becomes more important than the programing, and as a result, the technology (or equipment) becomes the "message."
A previous poster raised the valid point that pop culture has always been banal, and the mass market will always be bigger, which is true. I was reminded of this watching Ken Burn's Jazz that Ella Fitzgerald's first big hit was "A Tisket A Tasket"- not much better than the Spice Girls when you get right down to it. But I think one thing that is different now in various aspects of society is the switch in influence from a "top down" to "bottom up" paradigm.
This really started in the 60's. Prior to that trends in fashion or most anything else filtered down from the top- rich people, jet setters etc. But since the 60's the dominante influences in society have been "bottom up." Now you could say, "Well wasn't jazz the classic bottom up influence?" And I would say absolutely it was, but they were all wearing suits and ties while they were playing it- just like the upperclass people they were playing for. When the Beatles quit wearing their short jacketed suits in 1964 that was about the last vestige of any pop culture personalities still influenced by the top down paradigm. And not insignificantly, they then proceeded to blow it into oblivion.
So what's the point of all this? In the bottom-up paradigm we now live in, the influence of the banal pop culture is greater than ever before. When combined with greater disposable income than every before it is little wonder that the taste of the common man now dominates the Board Room when product decisions are being made. So it's not our imagination that there has been a lowering of the bar in a lot of areas, music and audio being on top of the list of casualties. The "mass market" no longer aspires to the same things as the high end market in many areas, and audio is the classic example. |
There's no question the electronics industry is always looking for the next big thing. And when they find it, all the manufacturers seem to move in lock-step to saturate the segment with product as they push their mature product lines to the back burner. And we all know that high end audio equipment has reached the flat part of the curve where the law of diminishing returns starts to limit the size of the next incremental improvement. Still, having said that, the fact remains that audio today delivers a level of performance we only dreamed about 20 years ago. So if all else were equal, it should be enjoying an upsurge of interest due to the high level of performance and value that it now offers. Afterall, greater numbers of us listened to inferior equipment 20 years ago; yet interest in high end declines when in fact, the opposite should be true.
So getting back to the spirit of the original question, what has changed? Well the short answer is "we have." Getting back to my previous post, new products only take-off when there is a convergence of new technology with a receptive public. That receptivity is most dramatic when a product taps into the prevailing mindset of consumers. We all know of the stories of good technologies that failed to find a market because they were out of synch with the mood of market in one way or another. So while the manufacturers can offer a supply side push with an array of new products, they end up pushing on a rope if it isn't striking a resonating chord with the customer.
In the 60's, Marshall McCluhan wrote "The medium is the message." I would update that in 2001 by saying "the technology is the message." Getting back to my post of yesterday, the receptive chord that has been struck with today's consumer is the technology of home theatre delivering the desired heightened experience. The experience becomes more important than the programing, and as a result, the technology (or equipment) becomes the "message."
A previous poster raised the valid point that pop culture has always been banal, and the mass market will always be bigger, which is true. I was reminded of this watching Ken Burn's Jazz that Ella Fitzgerald's first big hit was "A Tisket A Tasket"- not much better than the Spice Girls when you get right down to it. But I think one thing that is different now in various aspects of society is the switch in influence from a "top down" to "bottom up" paradigm.
This really started in the 60's. Prior to that trends in fashion or most anything else filtered down from the top- rich people, jet setters etc. But since the 60's the dominante influences in society have been "bottom up." Now you could say, "Well wasn't jazz the classic bottom up influence?" And I would say absolutely it was, but they were all wearing suits and ties while they were playing it- just like the upperclass people they were playing for. When the Beatles quit wearing their short jacketed suits in 1964 that was about the last vestige of any pop culture personalities still influenced by the top down paradigm. And not insignificantly, they then proceeded to blow it into oblivion.
So what's the point of all this? In the bottom-up paradigm we now live in, the influence of the banal pop culture is greater than ever before. When combined with greater disposable income than every before it is little wonder that the taste of the common man now dominates the Board Room when product decisions are being made. So it's not our imagination that there has been a lowering of the bar in a lot of areas, music and audio being on top of the list of casualties. The "mass market" no longer aspires to the same things as the high end market in many areas, and audio is the classic example. |
People used to being hyper-stimulated don't like to sit in front of a stereo and just listen to music. I've had the same experience others have described- friends come over and listen to two songs on my system and say "Wow, I've never heard music like that" as they get up and walk away! I've never had anybody pulled into the experience and want to play more music.
Sedond is right, people "want to watch" because it (HT) adds another sense (to be stimulated) to the mix. This is what I meant further up the board when I said in today's social environment, listening to music (and nothing else) seems almost quaint. We've seen it even in pro sports. The drama of the competition alone isn't enough anymore, look at the Olympic coverage. Baseball and even football has to be boosted with all sorts of other bells and whistles- fireworks, Diamond Vision, cheerleaders/dancers, prizes/contests. And while the XFL may not make it, I can assure you the "model" will be copied and perfected. The execution was the problem, not the premise.
Frankly, in this environment, I'm surprised high end has as many product choices available as it does. But the original question was why is HE relegated to cottage industry status? My answer would be that it is dominated by individuals that are passionate about their business. This small group of talented people are the antithesis of the large corporation. They are making decisions because it's the right thing to do, or to pursue a personal objective etc., cost be damned.
These companies go out of business frequently as a result too. But if they are successful, inevitably the passion of the founder can never be matched or shared as a company grows. So if it prospers, it will eventually get to the size where the inevitable buisness trade-offs start shaping the decions ("Wouldn't we make more profit if we came out with a mid-fi line and doubled our sales potential?" or "Shoudln't we aim closer to the middle of the segment?". I've personally sat in hundreds of these meetings. The bigger the company, the more generic the products become because you can't be a big niche company. The product development costs are prohibitive. So big companies must always aim for a broad market segment. Smart ones still find a way to differentiate their products, but they will never be thrive living off just HE profits.
So high end will always remain a cottage industry and banruptcy and mergers will be common; not only because of the small market, but because of the nature of the people and the type of company required to create it.
|
