How old are ASR's users?

[Verig]

Soria Moria slott was written down first in 1843.

Whups, I really don't know what I was thinking about.

 

[dfiler]

Fascinating! I too would be curious to see how the demographics differ at other AV forums.

 

[amirm]

I wonder if the distribution might be different on a subjectivist forum.

It is. The last subjectivist forum I ran was dominated by the older bracket.

I went to get Google stats but the largest category is "unknown:"

That category is larger than the sum of the rest!

 

[Sokel]

I guarantee you the average age on ASR is not 46 or 47. Everyone lies about their age!
It's very likely the majority of audiophiles will die off in the next 10 years.
Kids are not interested in big speakers, SINAD or any of that. They are totally happy with earbuds and boom boxes. Even standard TV speakers are fine for most of them. They are having trouble affording a place to live and Audio is far down the list of wants.

Kids are interested,they just don't have the money and space (yet).
I regularly have my nephew's musical class here (they are 20-23yo about 10 of them) and they would really like to have big speakers and stuff.

Is just that the conditions don't favor them.
Some of them are lucky cause their parents have stuff like that or even studio but that's it.

 

[danadam]

How about a histogram?

The alignment with x-axis seems weird. As if bin width was not 1 year.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

I'm a regular ASR reader and am 77 years old, dag nabbit.

Same here -- 77, born 7/7/47.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

It is. The last subjectivist forum I ran was dominated by the older bracket.

I went to get Google stats but the largest category is "unknown:"

View attachment 385177

That category is larger than the sum of the rest!

And yet I imagined it wouldn't be.
As we get older, we become wiser and more aware of out physical shortcomings.
Relying on our failing hearing, is a brash attitude for the young.
But it seems I miscalculated something!
Not my first . . .

 

[bachatero]

The alignment with x-axis seems weird. As if bin width was not 1 year.
View attachment 385182

Ok, here's a new and improved histogram with the widths fixed:

It's now more obvious that a lot of birthyears happen to fall on a decade: 2000, 1990, 1980, and 1970. Fibbing or just lucky?

 

[Chrispy]

So what did you conclude from this?

 

[Platypus20]

Damn !! At almost seventy, I’m on the backside of the curve

 

[Chrispy]

Damn !! At almost seventy, I’m on the backside of the curve

In a way, that's good, at least demonstrates somewhat its not just us dinosaurs

 

[bachatero]

So what did you conclude from this?

1. ASR users are overwhelmingly in their 40s, with a sharp rise starting around 24 (college grads?), and a smooth slope downward starting at 50
2. Many more members provide their age than those who don't, with 51666/77082 = 67% providing it
3. Many users appear to be fibbing with substantially more members born on an "even" decade than any other years

 

[Chrispy]

1. ASR users are overwhelmingly in their 40s, with a sharp rise starting around 24 (college grads?), and a smooth slope downward starting at 50
2. Many more members provide their age than those who don't, with 51666/77082 = 67% providing it
3. Many users appear to be fibbing with substantially more members born on an "even" decade than any other years

I'm thinking its more than 40s as a guess, but would be glad to see a younger population of participants, just don't generally expect that.
I don't even remember if I provided a birth date or if I was honest....don't really like that stuff.
People lie.

 

[Beave]

Just remember to take this data with a grain of salt because there are many, many profiles on here with, well, inaccurate birthdates (eg, lots of people put something like jan 1 2001 just because it's easy and they don't want to give their actual age).

 

[sam_adams]

 

[sam_adams]

lots of people put something like jan 1 2001 just because it's easy and they don't want to give their actual age

Why was I not informed of this? (See previous post.)

 

[Beave]

Why was I not informed of this? (See previous post.)

It's highly classified info. Sorry, you're not qualified to see the *REAL* age data. ;-)

 

[Chrispy]

Just remember to take this data with a grain of salt because there are many, many profiles on here with, well, inaccurate birthdates (eg, lots of people put something like jan 1 2001 just because it's easy and they don't want to give their actual age).

LOL reminds me when asked for the stupid voluntary birthdate for the computer entry I just use 1/1/(my year, well into my 60s). Today a cashier bless her heart said I wasn't so young (altho I use my birth year I use 1/1 to preface just to make it easier, but am 68).

 

[Platypus20]

You feel old when you no longer ask about a senior citizen discount, they just automatically give it to you

 

[kemmler3D]

I actually expected the median age to be a bit older. That could be my own bias or it could be that activity is not evenly distributed across ages.

I wonder if you can run a similar script to get age vs. post count... a scatterplot of that could be interesting.

Good catch on the decadal ages. I guess people don't want to be more specific than that. That makes sense if people are interested in privacy. When the topic comes up, the vibe seems to be pro-privacy, anti-data collection, so that makes sense.

But aside from that I am not sure people would really have an incentive to lie, other than vanity among total strangers.

Given that I haven't seen other examples of unfounded boasting / vanity (e.g. lying about having expensive gear when you don't) I would be surprised if there was a serious systematic downward bias in the ages reported.