You might look at this through the lens of "who is spending a bit more than normal to get better sound".
The average expenditure of the top 20% of US households on A/V equipment is apparently roughly $1500 per year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics...fluent-us-households-on-home-theater-systems/
This includes TVs and projectors.
The average purchase frequency per person per year is 0.1 (one every 10 years) but considering that households average 2.6 people, it's more like every 4 years. Consider that affluent households probably buy TVs more often than average, and let's be generous and say that they buy TVs every 3 years or so.
A nice TV might cost $1000-6000, so 20-100% of the annual A/V expenditure is already eaten up by TVs.
So this does leave some budget for audio, with some folks. It's totally (numerically) conceivable that 20% of the country is buying a $5K+ stereo every 10 years, or something in that range, maybe 10% spending $10K every 10-15 years.
However, we have to consider that Sonos etc. are not considered "audiophile gear". How many people are interested in spending double or triple the effort on more complex systems to reach the final 10-20% of sound quality? How many invest in room correction and EQ? I would personally guess less than 5% of those who have the budget. People really love convenience.
Since the numbers seem to support the idea of a more robust "audiophile" market,
why don't we see more audiophiles out there? That's a good question.
One reason I can speak to from experience - it is difficult (arguably impossible) to effectively convey the experience of good sound in words. Doing that used to be my day job, I was marketing consumer-grade audio stuff, but our key value proposition was better sound than the other guys at the same price point. And when we did surveys, everyone said the #1 criteria for buying audio gear (at any price range) was sound quality, right after price.
On paper, everyone wants good sound, they're not lying. In practice, everyone spends $50 on the 3rd-worst Bluetooth speaker... which does have "good sound quality", at least compared to the $40 option.
When it comes time to explaining how much better the sound is, or in what ways, we are left with very rudimentary tools in the english language. We make fun of it all the time on this forum. "Liquid highs" or "Buttery lows" are laughable, but also a serious attempt at conveying sound quality in words. You can't convince someone to spend $200 based on mere words, let alone $10,000.
Ultimately we concluded the best option was to let people hear the speaker in person, in stores. This is difficult for many, many reasons.
Audiophiles don't become audiophiles without hearing the difference for themselves first. So if you think there ought to be more people "in the hobby", this is the problem to solve.